Skip to main content

Full text of "A history of the councils of the church : from the original documents"

See other formats 


•a 

]  f  r  A*  ! 


•BBS 


jpresenteC)  to 


of  tbe 

of  Toronto 

bs 

Bertram  1R.  2>avis 

from  tbe  books  of 

tbe  late  Xionel  3>a\>is,  1R.C< 


BISHOP  HEFELE'S  COUNCILS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS  OF  THE  CHURCH.  From  the 
Original  Documents.  By  the  Right  Rev.  C.  J.  HEFELE,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Rottenburg.  In  Five  Volumes,  demy  8vo,  price  12s. 
each. 


Vol.      I.  To  A.D.  325. 

Vol.    II.  A.D.  326  to  429. 

Vol.  III.  A.D.  431  to  451. 

Vol.  IV.  A.D.  451  to  680. 


Vol.  V.  A.D.  626  to  close  of 
Second  Council  of  Nicsea, 
787.  With  Appendix  and 
Indices. 


'  To  all  who  have  the  slightest  pretension  to  the  name  of  scientific  theologians,  it 
must  afford  the  greatest  satisfaction  to  receive  a  new  volume  of  Bishop  Hefele's 
standard  work  on  the  Councils.  It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  commend  this  great  and 
learned  book.  No  one  would  think  of  studying  the  subject  of  the  Councils  without 
consulting  it.' — Church  Bdls. 

'A  thorough  and  fair  compendium,  put  in  a  most  accessible  and  intelligent  form.' — 
Guardian. 


A  HISTORY 


OF    THE 


COUNCILS  OF  THE  CHURCH, 


FROM  THE   ORIGINAL  DOCUMENTS. 


,          .       BY  THE 

EIGHT   REV.   CHARLES   JOSEPH   HEEELE,   D.D., 

LATE   BISHOP    OF    ROTTENBURG, 
FORMERLY   PROFESSOR   OF   THEOLOGY    IN   THE   UNIVERSITY   OF   TUBINGEN. 


VOLUME     V. 

A.D.  626  TO  THE  CLOSE  OF  THE  SECOND  COUNCIL  OF  NIC^A,  A.D.  787. 

STransIatco  ftom  trje  (Herman,  fcritty  tfjc  ^Ititfjor's  approbation,  anto  ^ot'teti  bg 
WILLIAM    R.    CLARK, 

M.A.,  HON.  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  F.R.S.C., 

PROFESSOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY    IN    TRINITY    COLLEGE,    TORONTO  ; 
HON.    PROFESSOR   IN    HOBART    COLLEGE,   GENEVA,    N.Y. 


EDINBURGH: 

T.    &    T.    CLARK,    38    GEORGE    STREET. 

1896. 


PRINTED   BY   MORRISON   AND   GIBB, 
FOR 

T.    &   T.    CLARK,    EDINBURGH. 
LONDON  :   SIMPKIN,  MARSHALL,  HAMILTON,  KENT,  AND  CO.  LIMITED. 

NEW  YORK:  CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS. 
TORONTO  :   THE  WILLARD  TRACT  DEPOSITORY. 


V.5 


EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 


IT  is  now  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  since  the 
present  Editor  proposed  the  publication  of  an  English 
translation  of  a  part  of  Hefele's  great  History  of  the 
Councils  to  Mr.  T.  Clark  (now  Sir  Thomas  Clark,  Bart.), 
who  was  at  that  time  senior  partner  of  the  publishing  firm 
which  has  done  so  much  for  the  promotion  of  theological 
learning  in  Great  Britain.  Mr.  Clark  readily  recognised  the 
importance  of  the  historical  method  in  the  study  of  theology, 
and  the  supreme  place  held  by  the  Church  Councils  in  the 
development  of  Christian  doctrine;  and,  without  any  great 
hope  of  financial  success,  consented  to  publish  the  first 
volume.  It  is  quite  intelligible  that  this  should  have 
obtained  the  largest  circulation  ;  but  the  sale  of  the  later 
volumes  leads  to  serious  doubts  as  to  the  nature  of  the  con 
temporaneous  study  of  theology.  It  is  true  that  most  of  our 
leading  British  scholars  are  acquainted  with  German,  and  that 
a  French  translation  of  the  earlier  volumes  (only  of  the  first 
edition,  however)  has  been  published.  Still,  it  would  appear 
that  a  great  many  who  have  some  pretensions  to  be  theo 
logians  are  contented  with  second  or  third  rate  authorities 
on  these  great  subjects. 

It  is  with  much  thankfulness  that  the  Editor  is  now  able 
to  send  forth  the  completion  of  the  original  design,  by  bring 
ing  the  work  down  to  the  close  of  the  second  Council  of 
Nicaea,  the  last  which  has  been  recognised  alike  by  East 
and  West.  In  closing  the  work  at  this  point,  neither  the 
Editor  nor  the  Publishers  wish  to  imply  that  the  subsequent 
Councils  are  unworthy  of  study.  There  is  no  break  in 
history,  civil  or  religious ;  and  if  any  other  translators  or 
publishers  should  undertake  to  bring  out  the  history  of  the 


vi  EDITOR'S  PREFACE. 

Mediaeval  Councils,  they  will  have  the  best  wishes  of  those 
who  have  carried  the  work  thus  far.  But  it  will  be  apparent 
that  we  have  arrived  at  a  convenient  period  for  the  sus 
pension  of  our  own  work. 

It  was  pointed  out  in  the  Preface  to  the  third  volume, 
that  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  controversies  were  not 
mere  strifes  of  words,  which  the  Church  might  have  evaded 
without  loss.  The  toleration  of  either  of  these  heresies  would 
have  involved  the  surrender  of  the  Nicene  faith.  Whether 
the  Monothelite  controversy  was  of  equal  importance  may 
be  a  matter  of  doubt ;  but  at  least  it  was  not  a  mere 
logomachy.  The  contending  parties  knew  perfectly  well  what 
they  were  fighting  about ;  and  a  careless  reader  who  pro 
nounces  the  controversy  to  be  either  unmeaning  or  un 
intelligible,  will  be  wiser  if  he  takes  a  little  more  trouble  to 
wrestle  with  the  terms  and  phrases  in  dispute  before  he 
finally  adopts  this  conclusion. 

To  many  readers,  the  most  interesting  portion  of  this 
volume  will  be  that  which  deals  with  the  difficult  case  of 
Honorius,  which  caused  some  embarrassment  to  the  Fathers  of 
the  Vatican  Council.  Whatever  our  own  judgment  may  be 
in  regard  to  the  orthodoxy  of  Honorius,  it  can  hardly  be 
denied  that  Hefele  has  dealt  quite  fairly  and  consistently 
with  the  subject.  The  claim  which  he  makes  in  the  Preface 
which  follows  will  be  allowed  by  all  careful  readers  of  the 
volume. 

Some  critics  of  previous  parts  of  the  history  have  ex 
pressed  surprise  that  the  Editor  has  not  more  frequently 
annotated  the  statements  of  the  Author.  Such  a  temptation 
has  frequently  occurred  ;  but  it  was  thought  better,  where  no 
question  of  fact  was  involved,  to  leave  the  Author  to  speak  for 
himself,  his  point  of  view  being  quite  well  understood.  More 
over,  we  believe  that  history  is  the  best  controversialist. 
When  we  compare  the  letter  of  S.  Leo  to  the  fourth 
(Ecumenical  Council  with  that  of  Pope  Agatho  to  the  sixth, 
it  becomes  quite  clear  that  an  explanation  of  the  difference 
must  be  attempted  from  two  opposite  points  of  view. 

The  Iconoclastic  Controversy  is  perhaps  that  part  of  the 
history  in  which  the  Author  shows  most  of  bias.  A  short 


Vll 

postscript  has  been  added,  giving  some  further  particulars, 
and  continuing  the  history  of  the  conflict  to  its  virtual  con 
clusion  in  the  Greek  and  Latin  Churches ;  but  this  also,  as 
far  as  possible,  in  a  purely  historical  spirit. 

It  is  with  much  satisfaction  that  we  have  found  room,  in 
this  volume,  for  the  corrections  which  the  Author  introduced 
into  the  second  edition  of  the  first  volume.  The  bishop  com 
plained  that  this  was  not  done  in  our  own  second  edition ; 
but  the  reason  was  very  simple :  this  was  printed  before 
the  sheets  kindly  forwarded  by  the  Author  reached  us.  The 
reader  will  now  possess  the  whole  history,  as  far  as  it  goes, 
with  the  latest  corrections  and  improvements  of  the  Author. 

In  conclusion,  the  Editor  must  acknowledge  the  generous 
recognition  in  many  quarters  of  the  work  which  has  been 
accomplished.  Those  who  have  laboured  on  the  translation 
have  done  their  best  to  make  it  exact,  accurate,  and  readable. 
The  last  two  volumes  have  been  brought  out  in  the  midst  of 
many  other  engrossing  occupations ;  yet  it  is  believed  that 
few  slips  will  be  discovered.  For  any  notice  of  these  we 
shall  be  thankful,  as  in  the  past.  In  this  connection  we 
desire  gratefully  to  acknowledge  a  very  careful,  learned,  and 
just  review  of  the  fourth  volume  in  the  Church  Times,  and 
another,  no  less  scholarly  and  helpful,  in  the  New  York 
Churchman. 

The  Editor  again  acknowledges  the  help  of  the  same 
accomplished  friend  who  assisted  in  previous  volumes.  For 
words  and  phrases  within  square  brackets,  the  Editor  alone 
is  responsible. 

And  now  our  work  is  done ;  and  we  commit  it  to  the 
Church,  with  the  sure  hope  that  it  will  lead  men  to  a 
better  understanding  of  "  the  Faith  once  delivered  to  the 
saints,"  and  so  will  help  forward  the  time  when  we  shall 
"  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  unto  the  know 
ledge  of  the  Son  of  God." 

W.  R  C. 

Advent,  1895. 


NOTE   ON   INDICTION. 


THE  frequent  designation  of  dates  in  this  volume  by  the 
word  Indiction  seems  to  require  a  few  words  of  explana 
tion.  The  word  signifies  primarily,  a  "  declaration,"  and  in 
particular,  "  a  declaration  or  imposition  of  a  tax,"  and  finally, 
"  a  space  of  fifteen  years."  It  appears  in  this  sense  for  the 
first  time  about  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century,  followed  by 
a  numeral  from  i.  to  xv.  Originally  it  meant  a  "  notice  of  a 
tax  on  real  property,"  an  assessment.  From  this  it  came  to 
mean  the  year  on  which  the  tax  was  assessed,  beginning 
September  1,  the  epoch  of  the  imperial  fiscal  year.  "It 
seems  that  in  the  provinces,  after  Constantine,  if  not  earlier, 
the  valuation  of  property  was  revised  upon  a  census  taken  at 
the  end  of  every  fifteen  years.  From  the  strict  observance  of 
this  fiscal  revaluation  there  resulted  a  marked  term  of  fifteen 
years,  constantly  recurrent,  the  Circle  of  Indictions,  which 
became  available  for  chronological  purposes  as  a  '  period  of 
revolution '  of  fifteen  years,  each  beginning  September  1 , 
which  (except  in  the  Spanish  peninsula)  continued  to  be  used 
as  a  character  of  the  year,  irrespectively  of  all  reference  to 
taxation."  See  Diet,  of  Antiquities,  s.v.,  where  authorities  are 
given.  What  is  further  necessary  will  be  found  in  the 
text  of  the  History. 


viii 


AUTHOR'S    PREFACE. 


A  MERE  glance  at  the  number  of  pages  in  this  new  edition 
(800  instead  of  732)  will  show  that  it  may  be  pro 
perly  called  an  enlarged  edition  of  this  portion  of  the  History 
of  the  Councils.  Whether  I  am  justified  also  in  designating 
it  as  an  improved  edition,  my  respected  readers  will  be  in  a 
position  to  judge  after  they  have  examined  sections  284, 
285,  289,  290,  296,1  298,1  314,1  324,1  360,  362,  366, 
367,  368,  370,  374,  375,  378,  383,  384,  399,  and  406- 
408.  Several  ancient  councils  not  previously  known  have 
now  been  inserted  in  their  proper  place,  many  new  investiga 
tions  have  been  made  use  of,  many  earlier  mistakes  and 
defects  have  been  rectified.  The  most  important  alterations 
are  introduced  into  the  sections  which  refer  to  Boniface,  the 
apostle  of  the  Germans,  and  to  Pope  Honorius  I.  Occasion 
for  the  former  was  given  by  the  recent  investigations  of  H. 
Hahn,  Diinzelmann,  Oelsner,  Alberdingk-Thijm,  and  others. 
With  regard  to  the  modifications  made  in  reference  to  Pope 
Honorius,  I  have  thought  it  fair  to  distinguish  clearly  every 
departure  of  the  second  edition  from  the  first,  which  was  in 
any  way  important.  Even  in  the  first  edition,  as  well  as  in 
the  Latin  memorial  [prepared  for  the  Vatican  Council], 
Causa  Honorii  Papce,  I  laid  down  as  my  conclusion  :  That 
Honorius  thought  in  an  orthodox  sense,  but  unhappily, 
especially  in  his  first  letter  to  the  Patriarch  Sergius  of  Con 
stantinople,  he  had  expressed  himself  in  a  Monothelite 
manner.  This  position  I  still  hold  firmly ;  but  I  have  also  given 
repeated  fresh  consideration  to  the  subject,  and  have  weighed 
what  others  have  more  recently  written  ;  so  that  I  have  now 

1  Only  these  sections  belong  to  the  present  volume  of  the  English  trans 
lation.     The  earlier  ones  belong  to  vol.  iv. ;  the  later  are  not  translated. 


x  AUTHOR'S  PREFACE. 

modified  or  entirely  abandoned  many  details  of  my  earlier 
statements ;  and,  especially  with  regard  to  the  first  letter  of 
Honorius,  I  now  form  a  more  favourable  judgment  than 
before. 

It  remains  incontestable  that  Honorius  himself  made  use 
of  the  Monothelite  expression  una  voluntas  (in  Christ),  and  that 
he  disapproved  the  shibboleth  of  orthodoxy,  Svo  evepyeiai, 
(duce  operationes),  but  he  did  both  under  a  misunderstanding, 
since,  at  the  beginning  of  the  great  dogmatic  conflict,  he  had 
not  clearly  enough  comprehended  the  two  terms.  That,  in 
spite  of  the  unhappy,  heretically  sounding  expression,  he 
thought  in  an  orthodox  sense,  as  already  remarked,  I  main 
tained  before ;  but  I  must  now  add  that,  in  several  passages 
of  both  his  letters,  he  did  not  endeavour  to  express  the 
orthodox  thought. 

When,  for  example,  in  his  first  letter,  he  ascribes  to 
Christ  the  Lex  Mentis,  he,  in  accordance  with  the  Pauline 
manner  of  speech  (Eom.  vii.  23),  which  he  followed,  meant 
nothing  else  than  the  incorrupt  human  will  of  Christ,  so  that 
eo  ispo  he  maintained  two  wills  in  Christ — this  human  will  and 
also  the  divine. 

If,  nevertheless,  Honorius  would  allow  only  unam  volun- 
tatem  in  Christ,  he  understood  by  this  the  moral  unity  of  the 
incorrupt  human  will  with  the  divine  will  in  Christ.  No 
less  do  we  find,  even  in  the  first  letter  of  Honorius,  indica 
tions  that  he  himself  assumed  two  energies  or  operationes  in 
Christ  (see  below,  p.  40);  but  he  expresses  himself  much 
better  on  the  subject  in  his  second  letter,  when  he  writes : 
"  The  divine  nature  in  Christ  works  that  which  is  divine,  and 
the  human  nature  accomplishes  that  which  is  of  the  flesh," 
i.e.,  there  are  two  energies  or  operationes  to  be  distinguished  in 
Christ.  As,  however,  Hororius  himself  made  use  of  the 
Monothelite  expression  una  voluntas,  and  disapproved  of  the 
orthodox  Bvo  evkp<yei,ai,  he  seemed  to  support  Monothelitism, 
and  thereby  actually  helped  to  promote  the  heresy. 

As  in  the  first  edition,  so  also  now  I  hold  firmly  that 
neither  the  letters  of  Honorius  nor  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  which  condemned  him,  have  been 
falsified;  but  also,  notwithstanding  the  objections  of  the 


XI 

Koman  Professor  Pennacchi  (see  sec.  324),  for  whom  personally 
I  have  a  great  respect,  I  still  maintain  the  (Ecumenical  char 
acter  of  those  sessions  which  pronounced  anathema  on  Honorius  ; 
and  I  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  Council  kept  to  the 
mere  words  of  the  letters  of  Honorius  which  they  had  before 
them,  to  the  fact  that  he  himself  made  use  of  the  heretical 
term  and  disapproved  of  the  orthodox  phrase,  and  on  this 
ground  pronounced  his  sentence.  In  earlier  times,  tribunals 
generally  troubled  themselves  much  more  with  the  mere  facts 
than  with  psychological  considerations.  Moreover,  it  did  not 
escape  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  that  some  passages  in 
the  letters  of  Honorius  were  in  contradiction  to  his  apparent 
Monothelitism  (see  sec.  324).  With  greater  accuracy  than 
the  Council,  Pope  Leo  n.  pointed  out  the  fault  of  Honorius, 
showing  that,  instead  of  checking  the  heresy  at  its  very 
beginning  by  a  clear  statement  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  he 
helped  to  promote  it  by  neyligentia  (cf.  sec.  324).1 

1  The  rest  of  the  Author's  Preface  has  no  reference  to  the  present  volume. 


CONTENTS. 


BOOK   XVI. 

THE  MONOTHELITE  CONTROVERSIES  AND  THE  SIXTH 
(ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

CHAPTEE    I. 

THE  OCCURRENCES  BEFORE  THE  SIXTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

PAGE 

SEC.  291.  Rise  of  the  Monothelite  Heresy,  ....  1 
,,  292.  Synod  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  626,  and  Transactions  at  Hiera- 

polis,  A.D.  629  .  .  .  .  .  15 

,,  293.  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  unites  the  Monophysites,  .  .  IS 

,,  294.  Sophronius  comes  to  the  defence  of  Dyothelitism,  .  .  21 
,,  295.  The  seeming  Juste  Milieu  of  Sergius.  He  writes  to  Pope 

Honorius,      .......  22 

,,  296.  First  Letter  of  Pope  Honorius  in  the  Monothelite  Affair,  .  27 
,,  297.  Synod  at  Jerusalem,  A.D.  634,  and  Synodal  Letter  of  the 

Patriarch  Sophronius,  .  .  .  .  .41 

,,  298.  Second  Letter  of  Honorius.  His  Orthodoxy,  ...  49 

,,  299.  The  Ecthesis  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  A.D.  638,  .  .  61 
,,  300.  Two  Synods  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  638  and  639.  Adoption 

of  the  Ecthesis,         ......  64 

,,  301.  Death  of  Pope  Honorius.  The  Ecthesis  is  rejected  at  Rome,  .  66 

,,  302.  The  Synods  of  Orleans  and  Cyprus.  Pope  Theodore, .  .  69 

,,  303.  Abbot  Maximus  and  his  Disputation  with  Pyrrhus,  .  .  73 
,,  304.  African  and  Roman  Synods  for  the  Condemnation  of  Mono- 

thelitism,       .......  89 

,,  305.  Paul  of  Constantinople  writes  to  Pope  Theodore,  .  .  93 

,,  306.  TheTypus,  .......  95 

,,     307.  Pope  Martin  i.  and  the  Lateran  Synod  of  A.D.  649,     .  .         97 

xiii 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

SEC.  308.  Letters  of  Pope  Martini.,         .  .  .  .  .116 

,,     309.  Pope  Martin  I.  becomes  a  Martyr  for  Dyothelitism,     .  .       118 

,,     310.  Abbot  Maximus   and  his   Disciples   become  Martyrs.     The 

Doctrine  of  Three  Wills,       .  .  .  .  .126 

,,     311.  Pope  Vitalian,  .......       135 


CHAPTEK    II. 
THE  SIXTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

SEC.  312.  The  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus  wishes  for  a  Great  Con 
ference  of  Easterns  and  Westerns,     .  .  .  .137 

,,     313.  Western  Preparatory  Synods,  especially  at  Kome,  A.D.  680,    .       140 
,,     314.  The  Deputies  from  Rome  and  the  Letters  with  which  they 

were  furnished,          .  .  .  .  .  .142 

,,     315.  First  Session  of  the  Sixth  Oecumenical  Synod,  .  .       149 

,,     316.  From  the  Second  to  the  Seventh  Session,         .  .  .153 

,,     317.  The  Eighth  Session,      .  .  .  .  .  .156 

,,     318.  Ninth  and  Tenth  Sessions,        .  .  .  .  .162 

,,     319.  Eleventh  and  Twelfth  Sessions,  .  .  .  .164 

,,     320.  Thirteenth  Session,        .  .  .  .  .  .166 

,,     321.  From  the  Fourteenth  to  the  Seventeenth  Session,        .  .       169 

,,     322.  The  Eighteenth  Session,  .  .  .  .  .173 

,,     323.  The  Pope  and  the  Emperor  confirm  the  Sixth  (Ecumenical 

Synod,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .178 

,,     324.  The  Anathema  on  Pope  Honorius,  and  the  Genuineness  of  the 

Acts  of  the  Sixth  Oecumenical  Council,        .  .  .181 


BOOK    XVII. 

THE  TIME  FROM  THE  END  OF  THE  SIXTH  (ECUMENICAL 
COUNCIL  TO  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  DISPUTE 
RESPECTING  IMAGES. 

SEC.  325.  The  Synods  between  A.D.  680  and  692,  .  .  .       206 

,,     326.  Examination  of  the  Acts  of  the  Sixth  Oecumenical  Council,    .       219 
,,     327.  The  Quinisext  or  Trullan  Synod,  A.D.  692,      .  .          ..       221 


CONTENTS.  XV 

PAGE 

SEC.  328.  Judgment  of  Rome  on  the  Trullan  Canons,       .             .             .  239 

,,     329.  The  last  Synods  of  the  Seventh  Century,          .             .             .  242 
,,     330.  The   Western  Synods  in  the   First  Quarter  of  the   Eighth 

Century,        .......  250 

,,     331.  In  the  East,  Monothelitism  is  renewed  and  again  suppressed,  257 


BOOK    XVIII. 

THE  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES  AND  THE  SEVENTH 
(ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

CHAPTEK    I. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES  UP  TO  THE 
CONVOCATION  OF  THE  SEVENTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

SEC.  332.  Origin  of  the  Controversy  about  Images,           .             .  .       260 

,,  333.  The  first  Synods  in  the  Controversy  about  Images,      .  .       301 

,,  334.  John  of  Damascus,        .             .             .             .             .  .304 

,,  335.  The  Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus,            .             .  .       305 

,,  336.  The  Mock-Synod  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  754,             .  .       307 

,,  337.  Carrying  out  of  the  Synodal  Decrees.     Abbot  Stephen,  .       315 

„  338.  The  States  of  the  Church  threatened  from  the  beginning  by 

the  Greeks,    .......       317 

,,  339.  The  Cruelties  of  the  Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus,  .       318 

,,  340.  Three  Patriarchs  in  the  East  are  in  favour  of  the  Images,  .       327 

,,  341.  The  Franks  and  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  A.D.  767,         .  .       330 

,,  342.  Contests  for  the  Holy  See,        .             .             .             .  .331 

,,  343.  The  Lateran  Synod,  A.D.  769,  .             .             .             .  .333 

„  344.  The  Emperor  Leo  iv.,   .             .             .             .             .  .338 

CHAPTEK    II. 

THE  SEVENTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD  AT  NIC^EA,  A.D.  787. 

SEC.  345.  The  Empress  Irene  makes  Preparations  for  the  Convocation  of 

an  (Ecumenical  Synod,          .....       342 

,,     346.  The  First  Attempt  at  the  holding  of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod 

miscarries,     .......       357 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

SEC.  347.  Convocation  of  the  Synod  of  Nicrea,  ....       359 

,,  348.  The  First  Session  of  Nicse,         .  .             .             .             .362 

,,  349.  The  Second  Session,      .             .  .             .             .             .364 

,,  350.  The  Third  Session,        .             .  .             .             .             .365 

,,  351.  The  Fourth  Session,      .             .  .             .             .             .366 

,,  352.  The  Fifth  Session,         .             .  .             .             .             .370 

,,  353.  The  Sixth  Session,         .             .  .             .             .             .372 

,,  354.  The  Seventh  Session,    .             .  .             .             .             .373 

,,  355.  The  Eighth  Session,      .             .  .             .             .             .376 

,,  356.  The  Canons  of  the  Seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod,  .             .       377 

,,  357.  The  rest  of  the  Synodal  Acts,  .  .             .             .             .386 

,,  358.  Sketch  of  the  Occurrences  in  the  East  until  the  beginning  of 

the  Reign  of  Leo  the  Armenian,  ....       391 

POSTSCRIPT  ON  THE  ICONOCLASTIC  CONTROVERSY,    .  .       394 


APPENDIX. 

Corrections  and  Additions  to  the  First  Volume  of  the  History  of  the 

Councils,  taken  from  the  Second  German  Edition.  .  .       401 

Errata  to  Volume  IV.,  .  .  .  ...  .451 

Alphabetical  List  of  the  Synods,          .....       452 

Index  to  Volume  V.}     .  .  .  .  .  .463 


HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 


BOOK    XVI. 

THE  MONOTHELITE  CONTROVERSIES  AND  THE  SIXTH 
(ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

CHAPTEE     I. 

THE    OCCURRENCES    BEFORE    THE    SIXTH    (ECUMENICAL    SYNOD. 

SEC.  291.  Rise  of  the  Monothelite  Heresy. 

IN  order  to  preserve  entire  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  the 
divine  and  the  human,  the  Nestorians  had  sacrificed  the 
true  unity  of  the  Person.  But  in  order,  again,  to  save  the  latter, 
the  permanent  duality  of  the  natures  was  given  up  by  the 
Monophysites,  and  the  proposition  was  maintained,  that 
Christ  was  of  two  natures,  but  that  after  the  union  of  these 
at  the  Incarnation  we  should  speak  only  of  one  nature.  In 
opposition  to  both  these  errors,  it  was  necessary  to  maintain 
both  the  duality  of  the  natures  and  the  unity  of  the  Person, 
and  the  one  as  strongly  as  the  other ;  and  this  was  done  by 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  by  the  doctrine,  that  both  natures 
were  united  in  the  one  Person  of  the  Logos  without  confusion 
and  without  change,  without  severance  and  without  separation 
(vol.  iii.  sec.  193). 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  had  spoken  only  in  general  of 

the  two  natures  which  are  united  in  Christ,  and  a  series  of 

new  questions  necessarily  arose,  when  the  two  natures  came 

to  be  considered  apart  in  their  elements  and  in  their  powers, 

v. — i 


2  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

and  an  attempt  was  made  to  determine  their  special  character 
in  Christ.  A  standard  for  this  inquiry  was  indeed  given 
implicite  in  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon :  "  The 
property  of  each  nature  remains  " ;  and  in  the  passage  of  the 
celebrated  dogmatic  epistle  of  S.  Leo  to  Flavian :  "  Agit  enim 
utraque  forma  (nature)  cum  alterius  communione,  quod  pro- 
prium  est."  But  only  a  part  of  the  orthodox  understood  how 
to  draw  the  proper  conclusions  from  this  statement.  The 
others  did  not  penetrate  into  the  sense  of  the  words,  and 
however  often  they  repeated  them,  they  remained  for  them  a 
fruit,  the  shell  of  which  they  did  not  break  so  as  to  reach 
the  kernel. 

The  question  concerning  the  special  character  of  the  two 
particular  elements  and  powers  of  the  natures  united  in 
Christ  was,  chronologically,  first  raised  by  the  Monophysites,  in 
their  controversies  as  to  whether  the  lody  of  Christ  had  been 
corruptible,  and  whether  His  (human)  soul  had  been  ignorant 
of  anything.  For  Monophysites  who  had  let  slip  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  it  was  obviously  not  admissible  to  inquire 
respecting  the  human  soul  of  Christ,  and  the  Agnoetoe  were 
therefore  excommunicated  by  their  former  associates,  because 
the  hypothesis  of  a^voew  must  lead,  as  a  consequence,  to  the 
acceptance  of  the  two  natures.  It  was,  however,  natural  that 
the  orthodox  should  also  take  notice  of  the  controversies  of  the 
Monophysites,  and  resolve  them  from  their  own  point  of  view. 
From  the  question  respecting  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  how 
ever,  there  is  only  a  step  to  that  respecting  His  willing  and 
working:  and  we  can  well  understand  that,  apart  from  all 
exciting  cause  from  without,  and  apart  from  all  foreign  aims, 
e.g.,  those  which  were  eirenical,  the  dogmatic  development 
would  of  itself  have  led  to  the  question :  "  What  is  the 
relation  between  the  divine  and  human  wills  in  Christ  ? " 
If  an  eirenic  aim  came  in,  and  it  was  thought  that,  by  a 
certain  solution  of  this  question,  the  long-wished-for  union 
between  the  orthodox  and  the  Monophysite  might  be 
brought  about,  the  interest  in  this  inquiry  must  naturally 
have  been  infinitely  increased.  But  this  influence  of  the 
practical  element,  on  the  other  hand,  destroyed  the  dispassion 
ateness  and  calm  of  the  inquiry,  and  gave  occasion  to  the 


RISE   OF   THE   MONOTHELITE   HERESY.  3 

Monothelite    controversy,  the    course    of    which    must    now 
engage  our  attention.1 

Heraclius,  Byzantine  Emperor  since  610,  soon  after  the 
first  years  of  his  reign,  was  forced  to  see  how  the  Persians 
renewed  the  expeditions  which  they  had  begun  under  his 
predecessor  Phocas ;  how  in  repeated  aggressions  they  seized 
and  plundered  many  Eastern  provinces  of  the  Eoman  Empire, 
laid  waste  Syria  and  Jerusalem,  sold  90,000  Christians  to 
Jews,  bore  the  Patriarch  Zacharias  of  Jerusalem  into  captivity, 
and  plundered  immense  quantities  of  valuables,  among  them 
a  part  of  the  holy  cross  (A.D.  616).  Soon  afterwards  (A.D. 
619)  they  plundered  Egypt,  wasted  Cappadocia,  and  besieged 
Chalcedon  within  sight  of  Constantinople.  Heraclius  wished 
to  conclude  a  peace,  but  the  Persian  King  Chosroes  n.  gave 
to  the  Greek  ambassadors  the  insolent  answer  :  "  Your  master 
must  know  that  I  will  hear  of  no  conditions,  until  he  with 
his  subjects  shall  abandon  the  crucified  God  and  worship  the 
Sun,  the  great  God  of  the  Persians."  Heraclius,  on  this,  took 
courage,  and,  concluding  a  peace  with  the  Avari,  etc.,  put  him 
self  at  the  head  of  a  great  army,  and  set  out  for  the  East 
against  the  Persians,  on  Easter  Monday,  622,  and,  taking 
Armenia  first,  attacked  them  with  success  in  their  own 
country.2 

1  We  possess  complete  monographs  on  the  Monothelite  controversies — (1) 
from  the  learned  French  Dominican,  Fra^ois  Combefis,  Historia  hasresis 
Monothcletarum,  sanct&quc  in  cam  scxtae,  synodi  Adorum  vindicise,  in  the  second 
volume  of  his  Auctuarium  Novum,  Paris  1648,  fol.,  p.  1-198  ;  (2)  from  the 
learned  Maronite,  Joseph  Simon  Assemani,  in  the  4th  volume  of  his  Bibliotliccn 
Juris  Orientalis,  Romae  1764 ;  (3)  from  P.  Jacob  Ehmel  (Benedictine  of 
Brzevnov,  and  Pro-director  of  the  theolog.  faculty  in  the  University  of  Prague), 
\indicise  Concilii  Ocumenici  vi.,  prasmissa  disscrtatione  historica  dc  oriyinc, 
etc.,  Jteercsis  Monothelitarum,  Prag.  1777,  Svo,  484  pp.;  (4)  Tamagnini, 
Historia  Monotkelet. ;  (5)  Walch,  KctzerMstorie,  Bd.  ix.  S.  1-666. 

"  Theophanes,  Chronographia,  ad  ann.  mundi  6113,  A.  p.  613.  ed.  Bonn, 
vol.  i.  p.  466.  Theophanes  says  that  the  Emperor  celebrated  Easter  in  Constan 
tinople,  April  4,  and  set  out  with  the  army  on  the  following  day.  But  Easter 
fell  upon  April  4  in  A.D.  622.  It  is  known,  besides,  that  the  era  which 
Theophanes  follows  is  short  by  eight  years,  and  every  year  begins  with  the  first 
of  September  ;  this  year  613,  therefore,  begins  with  September  1,  621,  and  the 
Easter  Monday  of  his  year  613  is  the  Easter  Monday  of  our  year  622.  Cf.  Pagi, 
Critica  in  Annalcs  JJaronii,  ad  ann.  621,  n.  5,  and  Diss.  dc  Pcriodo  (jfrscco- 
llomana,  in  vol.  i.  of  the  Critica,  sec.  28  and  p.  xxxvii.  Ideler,  Compcnd.  dcr 
Chronol.  S.  448. 


HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Whilst  he  was  in  Armenia,  as  Sergius  of  Constantinople 
relates  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  "  there  came  to  him 
Paul,  the  leader  of  the  Severians  (Monophysites),  and 
addressed  to  him  a  discourse  in  defence  of  his  heresy,  where 
upon  the  Emperor,  who,  by  God's  grace,  was  well  versed  in 
theological  questions,  opposed  the  heresy,  and  confronted  the 
impious  subtlety  with  the  unadulterated  dogmas  of  the 
Church,  as  their  faithful  champion.  Among  these  he  men 
tioned  the  fjila  evepy€La  of  Christ,  our  true  God,  ie.  that  there 
were  not  in  Christ  two  kinds  of  activities  or  operations  to  be 
distinguished,  one  divine  and  one  human.1  This  was  the 
utterance  of  the  Shibboleth  of  Monothelitism,  consisting  in 
this,  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  united  with  the  divine, 
possessed  indeed  all  the  proprietaries  of  manhood,  as  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon  teaches,  but  that  it  does  not  ivork,  but 
that  all  the  operation  and  activity  of  Christ  proceeds  from 
the  Logos,  and  that  the  human  nature  is  only  its  instrument 
herein. 

Pagi  (ad  ann.  622,  n.  2  and  3)  and  Walch  (Ketzerhist. 
Bd.  ix.  S.  19  and  103)  have  so  represented  the  matter  as 
to  make  it  appear  as  though  the  doctrine  of  the  pia,  evepyeLa 
had  not  been  uttered  by  the  Emperor  in  opposition  to  Paul, 
but  that  Paul  himself  had  given  expression  to  it,  and  had 
won  the  Emperor  to  that  side.  This  is  incorrect,  and  is 
derived  from  an  erroneous  explanation  of  the  authorities. 
Entirely  without  foundation,  therefore,  is  the  reproach 
brought  by  Walch  (S.  103)  against  Combefis,  who  rightly 
understood  the  matter,  and  concluded  from  what  happened 
that  the  formula  of  the  pia  evepyeia  must  have  been  known 
to  the  Emperor  "before  his  interview  with  Paul,  and  this  un 
doubtedly  through  Sergius. 

Even  later  writers,  e.g.,  Mosheim,  not  infrequently  assert 

1  Mansi,  Coll.  Condi,  xi.  p.  530  ;  Hardouin,  iii.  p.  1311.  Sergius  only 
mentions  generally  that  this  took  place  when  the  Emperor  stopped  in  Armenia 
on  his  expedition  against  the  Persians.  As,  however,  Heraclius,  in  his  expedi 
tions  against  the  Persians,  was  in  Armenia  both  in  622  and  623,  it  is  possible 
that  this  incident  took  place  A.D.  623.  But  his  stopping  in  Armenia  in  622 
lasted  longer,  and  in  the  following  year  only  a  few  days.  Of.  Theophanes,  I.e. 
and  A.D.  614,  p.  471f.  We  cannot  think  of  a  later  date  than  622  or  623,  for 
this  incident  necessarily  occurred,  as  we  shall  soon  see,  before  626. 


RISE  OF  THE  MONOTHELITE   HERESY.  5 

that  the  doctrine  of  the  /-u'a  evepyeia  was  put  forth  for  the 
first  time  on  his  arrival  in  Armenia,  and  that  here  we  are 
to  seek  for  the  first  beginning  of  Monothelitism.  But,  as 
Pagi  long  ago  remarked  (ad  ann.  616,  n.  6),  the  celebrated 
disputation  of  Maximus  with  Pyrrhus  (see  below,  sec.  303) 
takes  us  several  years  further  back,  and  shows  that  Sergius 
(since  610  patriarch  of  Constantinople)  had  given  expression 
to  this  doctrine  in  letters  before  the  year  619,  and  had 
secured  patrons  for  it  in  several  provinces.  In  that  dis 
putation  Pyrrhus  maintained  that  the  monk  Sophronius  (since 
636  patriarch  of  Jerusalem)  had  very  unseasonably  begun 
the  whole  strife  concerning  the  energies  in  Christ.  Maximus, 
the  champion  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  replied :  "  But  tell 
me  now,  where  was  Sophronius  (i.e.  he  was  not  until  long 
afterwards  on  the  stage  of  the  conflict)  when  Sergius  wrote 
to  Bishop  Theodore  of  Pharan  (in  Arabia),  sent  him  the 
alleged  letter  of  Mennas  (of  this  later),  tried  to  gain  him 
over  to  the  doctrine  contained  therein  of  one  energy  and 
one  will  (KOI  evos  &\ijfurn>9),  and  Theodore  answered, 
agreeing  ?  Or  where  was  he  when  Sergius  at  Theodosiopolis 
(Garin  in  Armenia)  wrote  to  the  Severian,  Paul  the  one- 
eyed,  and  also  sent  to  him  the  letter  of  Mennas  and  that  of 
Theodore  of  Pharan  ?  Or  where  was  he  when  Sergius  wrote 
to  George,  named  Arsas,  the  Paulianist,1  requesting  that  he 
would  send  him  passages  in  proof  of  the  pia  evepyeta,  that 
he  might  thereby  reconcile  them  (the  Severians)  with 
the  Church  ?  "  This  letter  was  received  by  Bishop  (-TraTra?) 
John  of  Alexandria  from  the  hand  of  Arsas.  And  when  he 
was  about  to  depose  him  (Arsas  or  Sergius)  for  this, 
he  was  prevented  by  the  invasion  of  the  Persians  into  Egpyt.2 
It  is  known  that  Egypt  was  ravaged,  A.D.  619,  by  the 
Persians,  and  that  the  patriarch,  S.  John  Eleemosynarius  of 
Alexandria,  in  consequence  fled  from  hence  to  Cyprus,  and 
died  there  in  620.  Hence  it  is  clear  that  Sergius  had 

1  A  party  of  the  Monophysites.     Of.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  99. 

-  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  471  sq.  Hardouin  has  not  reprinted  this  Disputatio  S. 
Maximi  cum  Pyrrho.  It  is  found,  however,  in  the  Appendix  to  vol.  viii.  of  the 
Annals  of  Baronius,  in  Mansi,  I.e.,  and  in  S.  Maximi,  Opp.  ed.  Combefis,  t.  ii. 
p.  159  sqq. 


O  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

entered  into  union  with  the  Monophysite  Arsas,  on  the 
subject  of  the  pta  evepyeia,  before  619,  and  had  intended,  by 
the  application  of  this  formula,  to  bring  about  the  union 
of  the  Monophy  sites  with  the  orthodox. 

In  what  year  Sergius  had  recourse  to  Theodore  of  Pharan 
is  not  mentioned  by  Maximus  ;  but  it  lies  in  the  nature  of 
the  case  that  he  first  conferred  with  orthodox  bishops  on  the 
admissibility  of  the  p,ia  evepyeta  before  he  introduced  the 
subject  to  the  Monophysites.  It  was  necessary  that  an 
approval  should  come  first  from  the  orthodox  side,  if  Sergius 
was  to  hope  for  anything  from  his  project  of  union.  If, 
however,  Theodore  of  Pharan  had,  at  so  early  a  period, 
given  an  affirmative  answer  to  the  question  of  Sergius 
respecting  the  admissibility  of  that  formula,  we  can 
understand  how  his  contemporary,  Bishop  Stephanus  of 
Dor  (in  Palestine),  who  played  an  important  part  in  the 
Monothelite  controversy,  could  designate  him  as  the  first 
Monothelite.1  The  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  said,  on  the 
contrary  :  "  Sergius  was  the  first  to  write  of  this  (the 
Monothelite)  doctrine";2  and  as,  in  fact,  by  his  letter  to 
Theodore  of  Pharan,  he  gave  him  an  impulse  towards  this 
heresy,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  he  first  conceived 
the  thought  of  turning  the  formula  jiia  evepyeia  to  the 
purposes  of  union.  He  says  repeatedly  that  he  found  it 
used  by  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  in  the  letter  of  the  former 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Mennas  (t552),  to  Pope 
Vigilius.3  He  says  that  a  whole  collection  of  such  passages 
occur  later  on  ;  but  as  Sergius  has  not  adduced  one  of  them, 
we  must  content  ourselves  with  the  supposition,  that  the 
most  important  of  them  were  those  to  which  Pyrrhus  after 
wards  appealed  in  his  disputation  with  Maximus.  At  the 
head  of  them,  as  the  banner  of  the  Monothelites,  stands  the 
passage  from  Cyril  (Tom.  iv.  In  Joanncm)  :  "  Christ  set  forth 
(rvyyevfj  Si  a^olv  evepyeiav."  4  This  certainly  has  a 


1  In  his  Memorial  to  the  Lateran  Synod  of  the  year  649  ;  in  Mansi,  t.  x. 
p.  894  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  711. 

2  In  the  thirteenth  session,  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  555  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1331. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  526  and  530  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1310,  1314. 

4  Several  maintain  that  these  words  were  interpolated  by  Timothy  ^Elurus. 
See  Maximi  Opp.  ed.  Combefis,  t.  i.  p.  Iii. 


KISE   OF  THE   MONOTHELITE   HEKESY.  7 

Monothelite  sound.  But  even  Maximus  showed  (see  below, 
sec.  303)  that  the  great  Alexandrian  used  these  words  in 
another  sense  and  connection.  "  He  was  far  removed,"  says 
he,  "  from  ascribing  only  one  <f>vcrt,Kr)  evepyeia  to  the  Godhead 
and  manhood,  for  he  teaches  quite  differently :  '  No  reason 
able  person  will  maintain  that  the  Creator  and  the  creature 
have  one  and  the  same  energy.3  Eather  does  he  mean  to 
show  that  the  divine  energy  is  one  and  the  same  whether 
without  union  with  the  manhood  or  in  union  with  it,  just  as 
the  energy  of  fire  is  one  and  the  same  whether  in  or  without 
union  with  v\vj.  S.  Cyril,  then,  did  not  speak  of  one  energy 
of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  but  said  that  the  divine  energy 
was  one  and  the  same,  alike  in  the  Incarnate  Son  as  in  the 
Father,  and  that  Christ  worked  His  miracles,  not  by  an 
almighty  command  (  =  divine  energy),  but  asomatically ;  for 
even  after  His  Incarnation  He  is  still  o/toepyo?  with  the 
asomatically  working  Father ;  but  that  He  also  worked 
them  somatically  by  bodily  touch  (a<pfj)}  and  thus  Si* 
ajjifyolv.  The  raising  of  the  maiden  and  the  healing  of  the 
blind,  which  took  place  through  the  word  and  the  almighty 
will,  was  united  with  the  healing  which  was  accomplished 
somatically  by  touch.  The  divine  energy  did  not  do  away 
with  the  human,  but  used  it  for  its  own  manifestation.  The 
stretching  out  of  the  hand,  the  mixing  of  the  spittle  and 
earth  (at  the  healing  of  the  blind),  belonged  to  the  evepyeia 
of  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  in  the  miracle  God  was 
at  the  same  time  acting  as  man.  Cyril  did  not,  therefore, 
overlook  the  property  of  either  nature,  but  saw  the  divine 
energy  and  the  ^COTCKT]  (i.e.  bodily  energy  worked  by  the 
human  soul)  as  united  aa-vy^vTO)^  in  the  Incarnate  Logos." 

As  a  second  witness  for  their  doctrine,  the  Monothelites 
quoted  repeatedly  a  passage  from  Dionysius  the  Areopagite 
(Epist.  iv.  ad  Caium),  and  certainly  this  was  also  adduced  in 
the  letter  of  Mennas,  although  Sergius  (Lc.)  did  not  expressly 
refer  to  it.  It  is  known  that  the  Severians,  at  the  Eeligious 
Conference,  A.D.  633,  for  the  first  time  brought  forward  the 
books  of  the  pseudo-Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  maintaining 
that  there  also  only  one  nature  of  Christ  was  taught  (see 
vol.  iv.  sec.  245).  The  Acts  of  that  Conference  do  not  show 


8  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

to  what  passages  in  these  books  they  appealed.  If  their 
contention  was  correct,  and  pseudo-Dionysius  was  a  Monophy- 
site,  he  would  naturally  have  taught  only  one  energy  in 
Christ.  But  in  truth,  pseudo-Dionysius  expresses  himself 
repeatedly  in  a  sense  opposed  to  Monophysitism.  Thus  he 
says  (De  divinis  nominibus,  c.  2,  sec.  3) :  "  We  must  separate 
(distinguish),  (a)  the  perfect  unaltered  human  nature  of 
Jesus,  and  (/3)  the  essential  mysteries  which  are  found  in 
it "  (i.e.  the  Godhead  united  with  it) ;  and  ibid.  sec.  6  : 
"  The  supernatural  Logos  takes  His  nature  (human  nature) 
entirely  and  truly  from  our  nature."  So,  in  sec.  10,  he 
teaches :  "  The  Godhead  of  Jesus,  which  transcends  all, 
assumed  the  substance  of  our  flesh,  and  God,  who  is  over 
all,  became  man :  without  mixture  or  change  He  communi 
cated  Himself  to  us.  But  even  in  His  manhood  His 
supernatural  and  transcendent  nature  shines  forth ;  and  He 
was  supernatural  in  our  natural."  And  in  the  fourth  letter 
to  Caius :  "  You  ask  how  Jesus,  who  is  exalted  over  all  in 
His  nature,  has  come  into  the  same  order  with  all  men.  For 
not  merely  as  Creator  of  man  is  He  named  man  (the 
Areopagite  thus  teaches  that  all  the  names  of  His  creatures 
belong  to  God),  but  because  according  to  His  whole  nature 
He  is  a  truly  existing  man.  .  .  .  The  supernatural  has 
assumed  a  nature  from  the  nature  of  men ;  but  is  never 
theless  overflowing  from  a  transcendent  nature."  As  the 
Areopagite,  in  his  theology,  proceeded  from  the  fundamental 
principle,  "  God  is  the  true  being  of  all  things :  He  is  in  all 
creatures,  and  yet  far  above  them,  perfect  in  the  imperfect, 
but  also  not  completely  in  the  perfect,  but  transcendent,"  in 
a  similar,  and  yet  again  in  another  manner,  he  considered 
that  Christ  was  true  man,  and  yet  far  above  man. 

If  in  these  passages  he  recognised  the  true  human  nature 
in  Christ,  so  in  that  which  immediately  follows  he  passes  on 
to  the  question  respecting  the  evepyeua.  "  Therefore  the 
transcendent,  when  He  entered  into  the  existent,  became  an 
existence  above  existence,  and  produced  humanity  above 
human  nature.  To  this  also  testifies  the  Virgin,  who  bears 
supernaturally,  and  the  otherwise  yielding  unsteady  water, 
which  bears  the  weight  of  material,  earthly  feet,  and  does 


BISE   OF   THE   MONOTHELITE   HERESY.  9 

not  yield,  but  stands  solid  in  supernatural  power.  We 
might  adduce  much  besides  by  which  we  understand  that 
that  which  is  said  of  the  manhood  of  Jesus  has  the  power 
of  transcendent  negation.  In  brief,  He  was  not  man,  as 
though  He  had  not  been  man,  but :  From  men  He  was 
exalted  above  men,  and  whilst  far  transcending  them  He 
truly  became  man.  Moreover,  Christ  did  not  produce  the 
divine  as  God,  and  the  human  as  man  ;  but  He  has  shown  iis 
the  divine-human  operation  of  the  Incarnate  God "  (ical  TO 
\OITTOV  ov  Kara  deov  TO,  dela  Spdo'as,  ov  TCL  avdp&TTiva 
a\\a  av^pwOevros  6eov  KOL  Kaivr]V  TLVCL 
€vep<yeiav  r)p,iv  TreTroXtrefyLtei^o?).  In  another 
passage,  too  (De  div.  nom.  c.  2,  sec.  6),  Dionysius  speaks  of 
the  "  human  divine-working,"  by  which  Christ  had  done  and 
suffered  all. 

Superficially  considered,  these  passages  might  be  thought 
to  teach  that  the  two  natures  in  Christ  had  only  one 
common  composite  will,  and  that  both  together  had  only  one 
operation.  But  in  truth,  Dionysius  has  in  view  only  the 
concrete  activities  or  functions  of  Christ  during  His  earthly 
life,  and  says  that  they  are  not  purely  divine  nor  purely 
human,  but  divine-human.  Earlier,  before  Christ,  it  was 
either  God  or  man  who  worked ;  there  were  only  purely 
divine  and  purely  human  activities ;  but  now  in  Christ  there 
is  shown  a  new,  wonderful  manner  of  operation :  the 
transcendent  God  works  in  a  human  manner,  but  so  that  at 
the  same  time  the  superhuman  shines  through,  and  the 
human  is  raised  above  itself.  He  walked,  e.g.,  011  the  water, 
and  this  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  human  action ;  but  the 
bearing  up  of  His  body  by  the  water  was  divinely  wrought. 
He  was  born — that  is,  human ;  but  of  a  Virgin — that  is 
superhuman,  and  is  divinely  wrought.  On  the  question, 
however,  as  to  whether  we  are  to  recognise  in  the  God-man 
a  divine  will  identical  with  that  of  the  Father,  and,  on  the 
other  hand,  a  human  will  to  be  distinguished  from  that, 
Dionysius  gives  no  opinion. 

In  the  same  manner,  S.  Maximus,  in  his  disputation  with 
Pyrrhus,  explains  the  celebrated  passage  of  the  Areopagite, 
and  thus  deprives  the  Monothelites  of  the  right  to  appeal  to 


10  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

it.  He  asks  whether  Pyrrhus  explains  the  /cawrj  QeavSpitcrj 
evepyeia  as  something  quantitatively  or  qualitatively  new. 
Pyrrhus  first  thought  it  quantitatively  new.  Thereupon 
Maximus  said :  "  Then  we  must  assume  a  third  nature, 
QeavSpiKrj  in  Christ,  for  a  third  energy  (and  it  would  be  such, 
if  it  were  quantitatively  new)  presupposes  a  third  nature, 
since  the  element  of  proper  essential  activity  belongs  to  the 
notion  of  nature.  If,  however,  the  new  is  qualitatively  new, 
this  cannot  express  pia  Mpyeta,  but  the  new  mysterious 
way  and  manner  of  the  human  activities  (energies)  of  Christ, 
which  is  a  consequence  of  the  mysterious  union  and  peri- 
choresis  (reciprocal  movement)  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ.1 
Indeed,  proceeds  Maximus,  in  the  expression  0eav$pircrj 
evepyeia ,  as  he  adduces  the  (duality  of  the)  natures  numeri 
cally,  at  the  same  time  also  the  duality  of  the  energies  is 
periphrastically  (mediately)  taught.  For  if  we  take  away 
the  two  opposites  (divine  and  human  in  Christ),  there 
remains  nothing  between.  And  provided  there  were  only 
a  single  energy  in  Christ,  the  QeavSpiicrj,  then  Christ,  as  God, 
would  have  a  different  energy  from  the  Father,  for  that 
of  the  Father  cannot  possibly  be  divine-human."  2 

As  we  have  seen,  Sergius  also  appealed,  for  his  formula, 
IJLLO,  Oeav&piKr)  evepyeia,  to  a  letter  of  his  predecessor  Mennas 
to  Pope  Vigilius  ;  but  the  examination  of  this  at  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council  (see  below,  sec.  321)  made  its  spurious- 
ness  more  than  probable  (cf.  vol.  iv.  sec.  267),  and  not  a  few 
have  supposed  that  Sergius  had  himself  manufactured  this 
document,  which  no  one  knew  of  before.3  The  introduction 
of  unam  operationem  into  two  letters  of  Pope  Vigilius  could 
not  have  been  accomplished  at  that  time  (see  vol.  iv.  sees. 

1  Another    inaccurate    explanation   of  the  words  of  the    Areopagite    was 
attempted  by   Fr.    v.    Kerz,  in  his  continuation   of  Stolberg's   Geschichte  d. 
Religion  Jesu  Christi  (Bd.    xxi.   S.   389),  when  he  says:  "  It  is  true  that  S. 
Dionysius  speaks  of  a  divine-human  will,  but  this  is  no  other  than  the  human 
will,  which,  however,  in  all  his  actions,  is  ever  .  .  .  connected  with  the  divine 
will,  in  everything  subjects  itself  to  it,  and  wills  always  only  that  which  God 
wills  ...  so  completely  loses  itself  in  the  divine  will,  that  both  wills  may 
figuratively  be  called  only  one  will." 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  754.     See  below,  sec.  303. 

3  Cf.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  98. 


EISE   OF   THE   MONOTHELITE   HERESY.  11 

259  and  267),  otherwise  Sergius  would  certainly  have  also 
brought  forward  Pope  Vigilius  as  a  witness  on  his  side. 
There  is,  however,  no  doubt  that  he  thought  in  all  serious 
ness  that  he  had  found,  in  the  formula  pia  evepyeia,  the 
precious  means  of  bringing  about  the  long-wished-for 
union ;  and  even  if  it  were  true,  as  Theophanes  and  those 
who  followed  him  declared,  that  Sergius  came  from  Jacobite, 
and  so  Monophysite  parents,1  it  would  not  therefore  follow 
that  he  had  intentionally  and  craftily  put  forth  a  formula  in 
the  interest  of  Monophysitism,  which  in  its  consequences 
should  lead  back  to  this  heresy.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  very 
probable  that,  after  he  had  made  the  supposed  discovery,  he 
immediately  made  the  Emperor  acquainted  with  it,  and  thus 
gave  occasion  for  Heraclius'  reference  to  the  pta  evepyeia 
in  his  intercourse  with  the  Monophysite  Paul  in  Armenia. 
Statesmanlike  prudence  demanded  of  the  Emperor  to  make 
zealous  use  of  that  which  appeared  so  valuable  a  means  of 
union ;  for,  if  the  attempt  succeeded,  millions  of  minds  which 
had  been  estranged  by  Monophysitism  from  the  throne  and  the 
State  Church  would  have  been  restored,  chiefly  in  those  pro 
vinces  which  the  Emperor  was  now  meditating  to  seize  again, 
particularly  Egypt,  Syria,  Armenia,  and  the  countries  adjoin 
ing  the  Caucasus.  In  Egypt  the  Melchitic  party,  that  is, 
the  orthodox  and  those  who  were  well  disposed  to  the 
Emperor,  now  numbered  about  300,000  heads,  whilst  the 
Coptic,  i.e.  the  National-Egyptian  and  Monophysite  party, 
was  between  five  and  six  millions  strong.2  The  proportions 
were  similar  among  the  Jacobites  in  Syria.  No  wonder  if 
the  Emperor,  at  the  beginning  of  his  campaign  against  the 
Persians,  having  in  view  the  ecclesiastical  reunion  of  the 
Oriental  provinces,  recommended  the  formula  pta  Mpyeuk 
He  did  so  naturally  with  still  greater  urgency  and  energy 
after  the  successful  termination  of  the  campaign,  and  after 
he  had,  by  the  peace  of  the  year  6 2 8,  received  back  the  lands 
which  he  had  wrested  from  the  Persians. 

1  Theophanes,   Chronogr.,  ad  ann.  mundi  6221,   ed.   Bonn,   t.    i.  p.    506. 
Cf.  Walch,  I.e.  S.  83,  84,  101. 

2  Renaudot,   Hist.  Patriarcharum    Alexandrinorum    Jacobitarum,    Paris 
1713,  p.  163  sq. 


12  HISTORY   OF    THE   COUNCILS. 

The  next  certain  chronological  point  in  the  history  of 
Monothelitism  is  the  stay  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius  in  Lazia 
(Colchis),  and  his  interview  there  with  Cyrus,  metropolitan  of 
Phasis,  A.D.  626.  Theophanes  says  (p.  485)  that  Heraclius, 
in  the  year  of  the  world  61 17,  corresponding  with  September 
1,  625—626,  of  our  reckoning  (see  above,  p.  3,  note),  had 
tarried  for  a  considerable  time  in  the  country  of  Lazia,  on  a 
new  expedition  against  the  Persians.  The  same  date,  626, 
for  the  interview  with  Cyrus,  may  be  inferred  from  a  passage  of 
the  thirteenth  session  of  the  sixth  CEcumenical  Council,  where 
it  is  said  that  Cyrus  had  written  to  Sergius  fifty-six  years 
before.1  But  an  event  still  more  important  for  the  history 
of  Monothelitism  had  preceded  this  of  the  year  626,  as  we 
learn  from  Cyrus  himself,  who  in  his  letter  to  Sergius 
declares :  "  When  I  met  the  Emperor,  I  read  the  decree 
which  he  sent  to  Archbishop  Arcadius  of  Cyprus  against 
Paul,  this  head  of  the  bishopless  (aveincrKOTrwv).  The  orthodox 
doctrine  is  therein  accurately  set  forth.  As,  however,  I 
found  that  in  this  decree  it  is  forbidden  to  speak  of  two 
energies  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  after  the  union  (of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ),  I  did  not  agree  to  this  point,  and  appealed 
to  the  letter  of  Pope  Leo,  which  expressly  teaches  two 
energies  in  mutual  union.2  After  we  had  further  discussed 
this  subject,  I  received  the  command  to  read  your  (Sergius') 
honoured  letter,  which,  as  was  said,  and  as  inspection  showed, 
was  a  reply  (avriypcKJiov)  to  that  imperial  decree  (to 
Arcadius) ;  for  it  also  referred  to  that  evil  Paul  and  a  copy 
of  the  decree  against  him,  and  approved  of  its  contents.  I 
received  command  in  the  first  place  to  be  silent,  no  longer  to 
contradict,  and  to  apply  to  you  for  further  instruction  on  this 
point,  that  after  the  eV&xm  of  the  two  natures  we  should 
accept  only  ^iav  rjyov/jievifcrjv  evepyeiav." 3  Sergius  repeats 
the  same  in  his  letter  in  answer  to  Cyrus,  and  then  refers  to 

1  Mansi,   t.   xi.   p.   558  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1335.     Of.  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
626,  n.  13. 

2  He  refers  to  the  famous  Epistola  dogmatica  of  Leo  to  Flavian,  in  which 
(c.  4)  he  says  :  ' '  Agit  ( =  tvepyei]  enim  utraque  forma  cum  alterius  communione, 
quod  proprium  est."     Of.  vol.  iii.  sec.  176. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  559  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1338.    Instead  of/j.iav  -rjyovfj.€viKr]v, 
the  old  Latin  translator  read  plav  tfyovv  fj.ovadiK-rji',  una  et  singularis  operatio. 


EISE   OF   THE   MONOTHELITE   HERESY.  13 

Paul  as  chief  of  the  Acephali,1  explaining  for  us  more  fully 
the  aveTricrKOTrow  in  the  letter  of  Cyrus,  a  matter  which 
Walch  (I.e.  S.  25  and  105)  has  quite  misunderstood. 

From  these  communications  we  learn  that  the  Emperor, 
after  that  vain  attempt  in  Armenia  to  win  the  Monophysite 
Paul  for  the  Church,  issued  a  decree  against  him  to  Arch 
bishop  Arcadius  of  Cyprus ;  for  no  one  doubts  that  it  was 
aimed  at  Paul,  since  the  Severians  were  only  a  division  of 
the  Acephali  (opponents  of  the  Henoticon),  so  that  Paul 
might  be  designated  sometimes  with  one  and  sometimes  with 
the  other  of  those  names. 

If  it  is  certain  that  the  Emperor  had  an  interview  with 
the  Monophysite  leader  Paul,  in  the  year  622,  during  his 
longer  stay  in  Armenia,  in  order  to  gain  him  over  to  the 
union,  we  may  with  probability  suppose  that  at  the  same 
time  the  union  of  the  Monophysite  Armenians  at  large  was 
attempted,  and  for  this  purpose  the  Synod  of  Garin  or 
Theodosiopolis  was  held.  We  have  already  spoken  of  it 
(vol.  iv.  sec.  289),  and  remarked  that  it  has  generally  been 
assigned  to  the  year  622,  but  by  Tschamtschean  preferably 
to  627  or  629.  Some  chronological  data  are  lacking;  but 
we  regard  it  as  contemporaneous  with  the  interview  between 
the  Emperor  and  Paul,  held  for  the  same  purpose  and  at  the 
same  place.2  It  cannot  properly  be  objected  that  it  would,  in 
that  case,  be  strange  that  nothing  should  be  said  at  the  Synod 
of  Garin  of  the  pta,  evepyeia,  when  that  was  done  at  the 
interview  with  Paul.  We  reply,  (a)  our  information  respect 
ing  that  Synod  is  so  scanty  and  imperfect,  that  we  cannot 
with  certainty  infer  from  its  silence  that  the  Emperor  did 
not  there  employ  the  new  formula  for  the  purposes  of  union. 
Besides,  (b)  it  is  possible  that  the  Armenian  Patriarch  Esra 
consented  to  accept  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  without  the 
bait  of  the  pia  evepyeia.  Finally,  (o)  it  is  clear  that  the 
omission  to  bring  forward  the  formula  pia  evepyeia  at 
Garin,  in  the  later  years  627,  629,  or  632,  would  be  still 
more  strange  than  in  622,  since  the  Emperor,  in  the  course 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  526  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1310. 

2  Assemani,  in  his  Biblioth.  Juris  Orient,  t.  iv.  p.  12,  takes  a  different  view. 
He  places  the  Synod  of  Garin  in  632. 


14  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

of  time,  gained  increasing  faith  in  its  serviceableness,  from  the 
year  626  recommended  it  with  increased  energy  (as  we  learn 
from  the  case  of  Cyrus  of  Phasis),  and  presented  himself 
more  and  more  decisively  as  patron  of  Monothelitism.  By 
removing  the  Synod  of  Garin  to  the  year  622  we  clear  up 
several  difficulties,  and  it  becomes  easier  in  this  way  to  con 
struct  the  early  history  of  Monothelitism. 

We  know  (vol.  iv.  sec.  289)  that  the  Emperor  also 
brought  Greek  bishops  with  him  to  the  Union-Synod  of 
Garin.  But  who  could  have  been  better  suited  for  the 
purpose,  and  whom  could  the  Emperor  have  thought  more  of, 
than  the  bishop  of  his  principal  city,  Sergius,  who  had  made 
a  special  study  of  the  union,  and  believed  that  he  had 
discovered  a  universal  means  of  securing  it.  Now,  that 
Sergius  was  present  in  Garin,  we  learn  from  the  disputation 
of  Maximus  with  Pyrrhus,  where  it  is  said :  "  Where  was 
Sophronius  when  Sergius,  at  Theodosiopolis  (i.e.  Garin),  wrote 
to  the  Severian  Paul,  the  one-eyed,  and  also  sent  to  him  the 
letter  of  Mennas  and  that  of  Theodore  of  Pharan  ? "  (See 
above,  p.  5).  If,  however,  Sergius  was  at  Garin,  or  in  Armenia 
generally,  in  the  train  of  the  Emperor,  it  is  natural  to  believe 
that  he  took  part  in  the  transactions  with  Paul,  and  suggested 
to  the  Emperor  the  idea  of  the  pla  evep<yeia.  That,  in  his 
letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  he  said  nothing  of  his  participation, 
and  represented  the  matter  as  though  the  Emperor  had 
independently,  as  a  great  theologian,  invented  the  formula  in 
question,  was  dictated  by  prudence  in  regard  to  Kome  and 
also  to  the  Emperor. 

That  Paul  was  from  Cyprus  we  infer  from  the  decree  of 
the  Emperor  to  Arcadius.  If,  however,  we  assume  that  the 
Synod  of  Garin  falls  at  the  same  time  as  the  transactions 
with  Paul,  this  explains  his  presence  in  Armenia, — he  too  was 
invited  to  the  Synod, — and  thus  too  we  can  better  understand 
the  decree  to  Archbishop  Arcadius  of  Cyprus.  We  know 
that  there  were  Armenian,  i.e.  Monophysite,  congregations  in 
Cyprus.1  The  union  of  the  Armenian  patriarch  at  Garin 
drew  on,  as  a  consequence,  the  union  of  the  churches 
affiliated  to  him.  This  was  opposed  by  Paul,  the  head  of  the 

1  Le  Quien,  Oricm  Christ,  t.  i.  p.  1429.     Walch,  I.e.  S.  106. 


SYNOD   AT    CONSTANTINOPLE,   A.D.    626.  15 

Monophysites  in  Cyprus ;  hence  the  imperial  decree  to 
Arcadius,  and  along  with  this  the  demand  that,  in  his 
position  as  metropolitan,  he  would  forward  the  union 
throughout  all  Cyprus  by  the  application  of  the  formula 
fjula  evepyeia. 

Whether  Paul,  the  one-eyed,  to  whom  Sergius  wrote,  is 
identical  with  this  Paul  of  Cyprus,  may  remain  undecided ; 
but  it  is  quite  possible  that,  after  the  Cypriote  Paul  had 
departed  from  the  Emperor  and  left  Cyprus  without  entering 
the  union,  Sergius  made  another  attempt  to  gain  him  for  the 
fjLLa  evepyeia,  and  so  for  the  union,  by  sending  him  the  letters 
of  Mennas  and  of  Theodore  of  Pharan.  The  imperial  decree 
to  Arcadius  would  in  that  case  have  come  after  the  failure 
and  in  support  of  this  attempt.  Sergius,  however,  had  in  the 
meantime  departed  from  Armenia,  and  therefore  could  only 
in  writing  further  communicate  his  view  to  the  Emperor  on 
this  decree  and  on  the  stiff-necked  Paul,  probably  before 
the  actual  publication  of  the  decree. 

SEC.  292.  Synod  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  626,  and  Transactions 
at  Hierapolis,  A.D.  629. 

After  the  transactions  with  Paul,  says  Sergius  in  his 
letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  there  passed  some  time  before  the 
Emperor  met  Cyrus  of  Phasis  (A.D.  626)  in  the  province  of 
Lazia,  and  that  took  place  which  we  have  related  above 
(p.  12).  In  accordance  with  his  command,  Cyrus  in  a  letter 
asked  Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  for  further  ex 
planation  on  the  fjiLa  dvepyeia,  and  we  possess  his  deliberate 
answer  given  at  a  Synod  in  Constantinople,1  among  the  Acts 
of  the  sixth  Council.  The  principal  contents  are  as  follows : 
1.  In  the  great  holy  Synods  this  subject  of  one  or  two 
energies  was  not  at  all  touched,  and  we  find  no  decision 
given  on  this  subject.  But  several  of  the  principal  Fathers, 
particularly  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  have  in  several  writings 
spoken  of  a  pla  £o>07rofco<?  evepyeia  Xpiarov.  Mennas,  also 
of  Constantinople,  addressed  a  letter  to  Pope  Vigilius  of  Old 

1  We  are  assured  of  this  by  the  Libellu*  Synodicus,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  606  ; 
Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1535. 


16  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Borne,  in  which  he,  in  the  same  manner,  taught  ev  TO  rov 
XpucTTov  OeXrjfjia  /cal  fjiiav  ^woiroiov  evepyeiav.  I  forward  to  you 
a  copy  of  this  \6yos  of  Mennas,  and  append  to  it  several 
other  patristic  passages  on  this  subject.  As  regards,  how 
ever,  the  letter  of  the  most  holy  Leo,  and  the  passage  :  "  A  git 
utraque  forma, "  etc.,  of  the  many  opponents  of  Severus  (the 
Monophysite),  who  have  appealed  to  this  letter,  the  common 
pillar  of  orthodoxy,  not  one  has  found  in  it  the  doctrine  of 
two  energies.  I  will  mention  only  one,  Eulogius,  bishop  of 
Alexandria  (f  608),  who  wrote  a  whole  book  in  defence  of 
this  letter  (extracts  from  it  are  found  in  Photius,  Biblioth. 
cod.  226).  I  have  also  added  this  to  the  patristic  testimonies 
mentioned.  Generally,  no  one  of  the  divinely  enlightened 
teachers  up  to  this  time  has  spoken  of  two  energies ;  and  it 
is  quite  necessary  to  follow  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers,  not 
only  in  their  meaning,  but  also  to  use  the  very  same  words 
as  they  did  and  in  no  way  to  alter  any  of  them.1 

Of  this,  his  answer  to  Cyrus,  Sergius  also  speaks  in  his 
letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  adding  that  he  had  sent  to  him  the 
letter  of  Mennas,  but  had  not  expressed  his  own  view,  and 
from  that  time  the  question  in  regard  to  Energy  had  rested, 
until  Cyrus  had  become  patriarch  of  Alexandria.2 

This  last  assertion  is  contradicted  by  the  Greek  historians 
Theophanes,  Cedrenus,  and  Zonaras,  and  also  by  an  old 
anonymous  biography  of  Abbot  Maximus,  when  they  assign 
to  the  year  629  (according  to  the  chronology  of  Theophanes, 
621)  a  transaction  which  the  Emperor  Heraclius  had  at 
Hierapolis  in  Syria  (Zonaras,  by  mistake,  says  Jerusalem) 
with  the  Jacobite  Patriarch  Athanasius,  and  at  which  he  had 
held  out  to  him  the  patriarchal  chair  of  Antioch,  if  he  would 
accept  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.  The  sly  Syrian  had  con 
sented,  on  the  condition  that  he  was  accustomed  to  teach  only 
one  energy.  The  Emperor,  to  whom  this  expression  was  new, 
(?)  had  thereupon  written  to  Sergius  of  Constantinople,  and 
had  immediately  called  Cyrus  of  Phasis  to  come  to  him ;  and 
as  the  latter  by  word  of  mouth,  and  the  former  in  writing, 
declared  in  favour  of  the  pia  cvepyeia,  Heraclius  gave  his 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  526  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1310. 

2  Mansi,  xi.  p.  530  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1314. 


SYNOD  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,    A.D.   626.  17 

approval  to  this  formula,  and  made  Pope  John  of  Eome 
acquainted  with  this,  without,  however,  requesting  his  assent.1 
That  this  narrative  contains  inaccuracies  cannot  be  doubted. 
It  is  impossible  that  the  formula  fiia  evepyeia  should  have 
been  new  to  the  Emperor  in  the  year  629,  and  that  he 
should  have  been  under  the  necessity  then,  for  the  first  time, 
of  questioning  Bishop  Sergius  on  this  subject.  It  is  impossible 
that  he  should,  for  the  first  time,  in  the  year  629,  have 
asked  Cyrus  of  Phasis  his  judgment  on  this  formula,  since 
three  years  before  he  had  himself  made  Cyrus  acquainted 
with  it ;  and  it  is  a  gross  anachronism  to  make  the  Emperor 
address  a  question  to  Pope  John  in  629,  since  John  did  not 
come  to  the  papal  chair  until  640.  Forbes  of  Corse,  a 
celebrated  professor  at  the  Scotch  University  of  Aberdeen, 
supposed  that  the  Jacobite  Athanasius  and  the  Severian 
Paul  were  one  and  the  same  person;2  but  how  would  this 
agree  with  Pope  John  and  the  year  629,  since  Paul  had 
already  had  his  interview  with  the  Emperor,  A.D.  622  ?  And 
it  was  not  Paul  who  made  the  Emperor,  but  the  latter  who 
made  Paul  acquainted  with  the  pia  evepyeia]  whilst,  in 
the  case  of  Athanasius,  according  to  the  account  of  Theo- 
phanes,  it  was  the  reverse.  Pagi  declares  (ad  ann.  629,  n. 
2-6)  the  whole  account  in  regard  to  Athanasius  to  be 
erroneous;  Walch,  on  the  contrary  (I.e.  S.  80  and  89  ff.), 
makes  it  credible,  from  Oriental  sources,  that  a  Severian 
Bishop  Athanasius  certainly  met  the  Emperor  Heraclius, 
along  with  twelve  other  bishops,  that  they  presented  to  him  a 
memorial  (confession),and  were  required  under  threats  to  accept 
the  Synod  of  Chalcedon.  This  Athanasius,  Walch  thinks,  was 
the  same  whom  Sophronius,  at  a  later  period,  excommunicated 
in  his  synodal  letter.  We  may  add  that  the  year  629 
appears  quite  suitable  for  a  discussion  in  Hierapolis ;  for,  in 

1  Theophanes,  ad  ann.  mundi  6121,  t.  i.  p.  506  ;  Cedrcnus,  Historiannn 
Compendium,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  736 ;  Zonaras,  Annales,  lib.  xiv.  c.  17,  t.  ii.  p. 
67,  ed.  Venet.  1729  ;  Vita  Maximi,  in  the  edition  of  the  works  of  S.  Maximus 
by  Combefis,  t.  i.  p.  vii.  c.  7.    Cf.  Walch,  Lc.  S.  60  ff.   The  author  of  this  Vita  is, 
however,  later  than  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  to  which  he  refers  in  c.  38. 
He  may  perhaps  be  later  than  Theophanes  (t  818). 

2  Instructioncs  historico-Micologicae,  lib.  v.  DC  Monothclctis,  c.  1,  p.  222,  ed. 
Amstelod.  1645. 

V. — 2 


18  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

fact,  after  Heraclius  had  made  peace  with  the  Persians,  A.D. 
628,  and  had  got  back  the  portion  of  the  cross  of  Christ 
which  had  been  carried  off,  as  well  as  the  provinces  which 
had  been  seized  by  Chosroes,  he  spent  a  considerable  time  in 
the  East,  in  the  years  628  and  629,  for  the  purpose  of 
restoring  order  in  those  provinces.1 

SEC.  293.   Cyrus  of  Alexandria  unites  the  Monophysites. 

After  the  death  of  Joannes  Eleemosynarius,  the  monk 
John,  the  author  of  a  still  extant  biography  of  S.  John  Chry- 
sostom,  was  raised  to  the  chair  of  Alexandria  (A.D.  620),  and 
had  to  endure  much  persecution  during  the  Persian  rule  over 
Egypt,  but  survived  until  the  recovery  of  the  country  by  the 
Emperor  Heraclius,  A.D.  628.  At  his  death,  some  years 
afterwards  (630  or  631),  the  Emperor  raised  Cyrus  of  Phasis, 
of  whom  we  have  already  heard,  to  the  patriarchal  chair  of 
Alexandria,  in  order,  as  the  biographer  of  S.  Martin  declares, 
to  soil  this  city  with  Monothelitism.2  There  were  not  only 
very  many  Monophysites  here,  but  they  were  split  into  parties 
among  themselves.  We  have  already  seen  (vol.  iii.  sec.  208) 
that  both  the  (frOaproXdrpai,  (Severians)  and  the  a(f>0aproSo- 
Kr\Tai  (Julianists)  had  their  own  bishop  in  Alexandria ;  the 
bishop  of  the  former,  about  the  middle  of  the  sixth  century, 
being  Theodosius,  that  of  the  latter  Gaianas.  The  former  got 
the  name  of  Theodosians  from  their  bishop,  and  they  were 
united  by  the  new  patriarch,  Cyrus,  on  the  basis  of  the  pia 
evepyeia.  On  this  subject  he  tells  Sergius  of  Constantinople : 
"  I  notify  you  that  all  the  clergy  of  the  Theodosian  party  of 
this  city,  together  with  all  the  civil  and  military  persons  of 
distinction,  and  many  thousands  of  the  people,  on  the  3rd  of 
June,  took  part  with  us,  in  the  Holy  Catholic  Church,  in  the 
pure  holy  mysteries,  led  thereto  chiefly  by  the  grace  of  God, 
but  also  by  the  doctrine  communicated  to  me  by  the  Emperors,3 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  627,  n.  10  sqq.,  627,  9,  and  628,  2. 

2  In  Maximi  Opp.  ed.  Combefis,  t.  i.  c.  ix.  p.  viii.     On  the  chronology,  cf. 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  630,  n.  3. 

3  He  says  "  the  Emperors,"  because,  in  the  year  613,  the  Emperor  Heraclius 
had  caused  his  son,  Heraclius  Constantinus,  then  one  year  old,  to  be  crowned 
Emperor. 


CYEUS   OF  ALEXANDRIA  UNITES   THE  MONOPHYSITES.         19 

and  by  your  divinely  enlightened  Holiness,  ...  at  which  not 
only  in  Alexandria,  but  also  in  the  whole  neighbourhood,  yea 
even  to  the  clouds  and  above  the  clouds,  with  the  heavenly 
spirits,  there  is  great  joy.  How  this  union  was  brought  about, 
I  have  sent  full  information  to  the  Emperor  by  the  deacon 
John.  I  pray  your  Holiness,  however,  that,  if  in  this  matter 
I  have  committed  any  error,  you  will  correct  your  humblest 
servant  therein,  for  it  is  your  own  work."  *• 

The  information  appended  respecting  the  union  relates : 
"  As  Christ  guides  all  to  the  true  faith,  we  have,  in  the  month 
Payni  of  the  sixth  Indictim  (633),  established  the  following 
(9  K6(f>a\aia)  :  2 — 

"  1.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Ghost,  the  consubstantial  Trinity,  the  one  Godhead  in  three 
persons,  let  him  be  anathema. 

"  2.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  the  one  Logos  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  eternally  begotten  by  the  Father,  come  down  from 
heaven,  made  flesh  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  our  Lady,  the  holy 
God-bearer  and  ever  Virgin  Mary ;  who  was  made  man, 
suffered  in  His  own  flesh,  died,  was  buried,  and  rose  on  the 
third  day, — let  him  be  anathema. 

"3.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  the  sufferings  as  well 
as  the  wounds  belong  to  one  and  the  same  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord,  let  him  be  anathema. 

"  4.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
most  intimate  union,  God  the  Logos,  in  the  womb  of  the 
holy  God-bearer,  .  .  .  has  prepared  for  Himself  a  flesh  con- 
substantial  with  ours,  and  animated  by  a  reasonable  soul,  and 
this  by  physical  and  hypostatic  union  (cf.  vol.  ii.  sees.  132, 
158);  and  that  from  this  union  He  has  come  forth  as  one, 
unmixed  and  inseparable, — let  him  be  anathema. 

"5.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  that  the  Ever  Virgin  Mary 
is  in  truth  the  God-bearer,  in  that  she  bore  the  Incarnate  God, 
the  Logos,  let  him  be  anathema. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  562  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1339, 

2  The  Greek  original  has  iur\vl  Ilavvl.     As  the  Egyptian  month  Payni  began 
with  May  28,  the   old   Latin  version,  which  has  Mensi  Mail  die  quarta,  is 
plainly  wrong.     Undoubtedly,  foiMaii  we  should  read  Junii  (see  above,  p.  12). 
The  sixth  Indictim  indicates  the  year   633.      Cf.   Pagi,   ad  ami.  633,  n.  3  ; 
Walch,  I.e.  S.  113  ;  and  Ideler,  Comp&nd.  der  Chronol.  S.  73. 


20  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

"6.  If  anyone  does  not  confess  :  From  (!)  two  natures,  one 
Christ,  one  Son,  one  incarnate  nature  of  God  the  Logos,  as  S. 
Cyril  taught,  aV^e7TT<»9,  az/a-XXotcoTw?,  or  one  united  Hypo- 
stasis  (see  vol.  iv.  sec.  270),  which  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is, 
one  of  the  Trinity,  let  him  be  anathema. 

"7.  If  anyone,  in  using  the  expression,  The  one  Lord  is 
known  in  two  natures,  does  not  confess  that  He  is  one  of  the 
Holy  Trinity,  i.e.  the  Logos  eternally  begotten  by  the  Father, 
who  was  made  man  in  the  last  times  ;  .  .  .  but  that  He  was 
eYe/oo9  Kal  erepo?,  and  not  one  and.  the  same,  as  the  wisest 
Cyril  taught,  perfect  in  Godhead  and  the  same  perfect  in 
manhood,  and  therefore  known  in  two  natures  as  one  and  the 
same  ;  and  (if  anyone  does  not  confess)  that  one  and  the 
same,  on  one  side  (/car'  d\\o),  and  suffered,  on  the  other,  is 
incapable  of  suffering,  i.e.  suffered  as  man  in  the  flesh,  so  far 
as  He  was  man,  but  as  God  remained  incapable  of  suffering 
in  the  body  of  His  flesh  ;  and  (if  anyone  does  not  confess, 
that  this  one  and  the  same  Christ  and  Son  worked  both  the  divine 
and  the  human  ly  ONE  divine-human  operation,  as  S.  Dionysius 
teaches  (teal  TOV  avTov  eva  XpiaTov  /cal  vlbv  evepyovvra  TCL 
OeoTpeTrr)  teal  dvOpcJ&Triva  fiia  QeavSpiicf)  evepyeia  Kara  TOV 
ev  a7/ot<?  Aiovvcriov),  .  .  .  —  let  him  be  anathema.1 

"8.  If  anyone  does  not  anathematise  Arius,  Eunomius, 
Macedonius,  Apollinaris,  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  etc.,  and  all 
who  opposed  the  twelve  chapters  of  Cyril,  and  has  not 
amended,  let  him  be  anathema. 

"9.  If  anyone  does  not  anathematise  the  writings  of 
Theodoret,  which  he  composed  against  the  true  faith  and 
against  Cyril,  and  also  the  alleged  letter  of  Ibas,  and  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  with  his  writings,  let  him  be  anathema."  2 

We  can  see  what  efforts  Cyrus  made  to  render  this 
/ce(f)d\aiov  acceptable  to  those  who  had  previously  been 
Monophysites,  in  that  he  anathematised  every  form  of  Nes- 
torianism  in  the  sharpest  manner;  whilst  he  brought  back 
those  expressions  so  dear  to  the  Monophysites,  ex  &vo 
ij,  and  fjuia  (pvcns  TOV  6eov  Aoyov 


1  This  is  the  infamous  /ce^aXcuof  which  openly  put  forth  Monothelitism,  and 
will  hereafter  frequently  be  referred  to. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  563  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1339. 


SOPHRONIUS   COMES   TO   THE   DEFENCE   OF  DYOTHELITISM.       21 

after  the  example  of  Justinian  (vol.  iv.  sec.  270),  certainly 
adding  those  phrases  which  set  aside  Monophysitism.  Theo- 
phanes  professes  to  know  that  Cyrus,  in  combination  with 
Theodore  of  Pharan,  brought  about  that  union  (TTJV  v$po{3a<j>f} 
evcoaw  =  watery  union),  whereby  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  was 
brought  into  such  contempt,  that  the  Theodosians  boasted 
that  "  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon  has  come  to  us,  and  not  we  to 
that."  1  To  the  same  effect  speak  Cedrenus  and  the  Vita 
Maximi.2  The  Synodicon  maintains  that  the  union  in  ques 
tion  was  brought  about  at  an  Alexandrian  Synod,  A.D.  633.3 
But  Cyrus,  Sergius,  Maximus,  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
and  all  the  ancients  who  refer  to  this  union,  are  silent  on  the 
subject  of  a  Synod. 

As  was  natural,  this  intelligence  from  Alexandria  pro 
duced  great  joy  with  Heraclius  and  Sergius,  and  we  still  possess 
a  letter  in  reply  from  the  latter  to  Cyrus,  in  which  he  highly 
commends  him,  and  repeats  the  principal  contents  of  the 
K€(j)d\at,a.  The  meaning  of  the  seventh  he  expressed  in  the 
words  :  Kal  TOV  avrov  eva  XpiaTov  evepyeiv  TO,  0eorpe7rr)  fcal 
avOpcoTTiva  pia  evepyela,  Tracra  yap  Beta  re  Kal  avOpanrivr) 
evepyeia  e£  e^o?  Kal  TOV  avrov  creo-apKco/iLevov  Aoyov  7rpor)p%€TO. 
This  doctrine,  Sergius  falsely  maintains,  is  contained  in  the 
well-known  words  of  Leo  :  Agit  utraque  forma  4  (see  p.  2). 

SEC.   294.  Sophronius  comes  to  the  defence  of  Dyothelitism. 

About  the  same  time  when  the  union  was  accomplished 
in  Alexandria,  the  saintly  and  learned  monk  Sophronius  from 
Palestine  was  present  there  ;  and  Archbishop  Cyrus,  out  of 
respect  for  him,  permitted  him  to  read  the  nine 


1  Theophan.  Chronogr.  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  507. 

2  Cedren.  Historiar.   Compend.  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  736.      Vita  Maximi,  c.  9, 
p.  viii.  of  vol.  i.  of  the  Opp.  S.  Maximi,  ed.  Combefis.      In  this  Vita  the  ex 
pression  u5po/r?a0?7s,  watery,  is  taken  as  identical  with  colourless.    "Walch,  on  the 
contrary,  thinks  (I.e.  S.  113  f.)  that  it  means  that  the  union  lasted  only  for  a 
short  time,  and  on  the  seizure  of  Egypt  by  the  Arabians  became  water  again. 
In  fact,  the  Monophysites  again  got  the  upper  hand. 

3  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  606  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1535. 

4  This  letter  is  found  among  the  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of  649,  in 
Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  971  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  778. 


22  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

before  their  publication.  Sophronius  disapproved  the  doctrine 
of  one  energy,  and  thought  that  it  was  necessary  to  hold  fast 
two  energies.  Cyrus,  however,  endeavoured  to  sustain  his 
doctrine  by  patristic  passages,  and  remarked  on  this,  that  the 
old  Fathers,  in  order  to  win  souls,  had  here  and  there  yielded 
in  the  expression  of  doctrine,  and  at  the  present  moment  it 
was  especially  unsuitable  to  contend  about  words,  since  the 
salvation  of  the  souls  of  myriads  was  at  stake. 

Sergius  relates  this  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Honorius,  which 
we  shall  give  presently.  But  Maximus  adds  that  Sophronius 
fell  at  the  feet  of  Cyrus,  and  adjured  him  with  tears  not  to 
proclaim  that  article  from  the  pulpit,  since  it  was  plainly 
Apollinarian  (i.e.  Monophysite,  see  vol.  iii.  sec.  170).1  That 
Sophronius  immediately  wrote  on  this  subject  also  to  Sergius 
of  Constantinople  is  a  mere  supposition  of  Baronius ; 2  whilst, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  true  that,  not  suspecting  that  Sergius 
was  not  only  entangled  in  the  new  heresy,  but  its  actual 
originator,  Sophronius  now  came  to  Constantinople  in  order 
to  find  here  support  against  Cyrus.  He  wanted  to  gain  over 
Sergius,  so  that  the  expression  pia  evepyeia  might  be  struck 
out  of  the  instrument  of  union.  As  he  brought  letters  with 
him  from  Cyrus,  it  appears  as  though  the  latter  had  made 
the  proposal  to  Sophronius  to  appeal  to  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople  as  umpire ;  and  there  is  no  reason,  that  we 
know  of,  for  finding  with  Walch  (I.e.  S.  117)  the  conduct  of 
Cyrus  especially  noble,  for  he  imposed  upon  his  opponent, 
and,  instead  of  directing  him  to  an  impartial  umpire,  sent 
him  to  the  zealous  supporter  of  his  own  party.  If  Cyrus 
gave  Sophronius  another  letter  to  Sergius,  besides  the  one 
mentioned  above  (p.  18),  it  has  been  lost. 

SEC.   295.   The  seeming  Juste  Milieu  of  /Sergius.     He  writes 
to  Pope  Honorius. 

Naturally  Sophronius  did  not  succeed  in  gaining  over 
the  Patriarch  Sergius  to  himself  and  the  doctrine  of  two 

1  Epist.  Maximi  ad  Petrum,   in  Anastasii  Collectaneas  in  Galland.  Biblioth. 
Patrum,  t.  xiii.  p.  38  ;  and  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  691  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  633,  n.  3. 

2  Pagi,  I.e.  n.  4. 


THE  SEEMING  c:  JUSTE   MILIEU  "   OF  SERGIUS.  23 

wills,  yet  he  succeeded  so  far  that  Sergius  would  no  longer 
allow  the  fiia  evepyeua  to  be  promulgated,  so  as  not  to 
destroy  the  peace  of  the  Church,  and  in  this  direction  he 
gave  counsel  and  instruction  to  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  that, 
after  the  union  had  been  established,  he  should  no  longer 
give  permission  to  speak  either  of  one  or  of  two  energies.  At 
the  same  time  he  exacted  from  Sophronius  the  promise 
henceforth  to  be  silent ;  and  they  both  separated  in  peace. 
We  learn  this  more  exactly  from  the  letter  which  Sergius 
addressed  to  Pope  Honorius  soon  after  this  incident,  and 
immediately  after  the  elevation  of  Sophronius  to  the  see  of 
Jerusalem  (A.D.  633  or  634),  and  which  is  preserved  for  us  in 
the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council.1  This  letter,  from 
which  we  have  already  drawn  so  many  details,  after  a  very  polite 
introduction,  relates  first  what  had  taken  place  in  Armenia 
between  the  Emperor  Heraclius  and  the  Severian  Paul,  and 
how  then  the  Emperor  had  made  mention  of  the  pla  evepyeia. 
"  This  conversation  with  Paul,"  he  further  remarks,  "  the 
Emperor  referred  to  later  on,  in  Lazia,  in  presence  of  Bishop 
Cyrus  of  Phasis,  now  occupant  of  the  throne  of  Alexandria, 
and  as  the  latter  did  not  know  whether  one  or  two  energies 
should  be  maintained,  he  asked  us  and  requested  that  we 
would  give  him  passages  from  the  Fathers  on  the  subject. 
This  we  did  as  well  as  we  could,  and  sent  him  the  (probably 
spurious)  letter  of  Mennas  to  Pope  Vigilius,  which  contains 

1  In  order  to  make  out  that  the  letters  of  Pope  Honorius  to  Sergius  were 
falsified,  Bishop  Bartholus  of  Feltre,  in  his  Apologia  pro  Honorio  I.  (1750),  has 
pronounced  the  letter  of  Sergius  to  Honorius  to  be  totally  corrupt.  He  has 
been  recently  opposed  by  Professor  Pennacchi  of  Rome,  although  he  is  himself 
a  zealous  defender  of  Pope  Honorius.  Pennacchi  declares  most  decidedly  for 
the  genuineness  both  of  the  letters  of  Honorius  to  Sergius  and  of  that  of  Sergius 
to  the  Pope.  Pennacchi's  book,  De  Honorii  I.  Romani  Pontificis  causa  in 
Concilia  vi.  ad  Patres  Concilii  Vaticani,  published  in  Rome,  A.D.  1870,  and 
sent  to  all  the  members  of  the  Council,  is  the  most  important  which  has 
lately  appeared  in  defence  of  Honorius  (see  below,  sec.  154).  The  hypothesis 
of  an  essential  falsification  of  these  documents  is,  besides,  so  utterly  unfounded, 
that  any  further  discussion  of  it  is  unnecessary.  It  suffices  to  remark  that  the 
letters  of  Honorius  were  read  aloud  at  the  twelfth  session  of  the  sixth  (Ecu 
menical  Council,  and  at  that  time  an  official  examination  was  made  (by  a 
deputy  of  Rome)  as  to  whether  the  passages  read  were  in  enact  agreement  with 
the  still  extant  originals  ;  and  this  was  shown.  See  below,  sec.  319.  (Added 
to  the  second  edition. ) 


24  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

such  passages  of  the  Fathers  on  one  energy  and  one  will 
(see  p.  14),  without,  however,  giving  any  judgment  of  our 
own.  From  this  time  the  matter  rested  for  a  while.1 

"  A  short  time  before  this,  however,  Cyrus,  now  patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  sustained  by  God's  grace  and  encouraged  by 
the  Emperor,  summoned  the  adherents  of  Eutyches  residing 
in  Alexandria,  Dioscurus,  Severus,  and  Julian,  to  join  the 
Catholic-  Church.  After  many  disputations  and  troubles, 
Cyrus,  who  displayed  great  prudence  in  the  matter,  at  last 
gained  his  end,  and  then  were  dogmatic  Ke$d\aia  agreed  upon 
between  the  two  parties,  on  which  all  who  called  Dioscurus 
and  Severus  their  ancestors  united  with  the  Holy  Catholic 
Church.  All  Alexandria,  almost  all  Egypt,  the  Thebaid, 
Lydia,  and  the  other  eparchies  (provinces)  of  the  Egyptian 
diocese  (see  vol.  ii.  sec.  98,  c.  2),  had  now  become  one  flock, 
and  those  who  were  formerly  split  into  a  number  of  heresies 
were,  by  G-od's  grace  and  the  zeal  of  Cyrus,  one,  confessing 
with  one  voice  and  in  unity  of  Spirit  the  true  dogmas  of  the 
Church.2  Among  the  famous  Kephalaia  was  that  of  the  pia 
evepyeia  of  Christ.  Just  at  that  time  the  most  saintly  monk 
Sophronius,  now,  as  we  hear,  bishop  of  Jerusalem  (we  have 
not  yet  received  his  synodal  letter),  found  himself  at 
Alexandria  with  Cyrus,  conversed  with  him  on  this  union, 
and  opposed  the  Kephalaion  of  the  fiia  evepyeta,  maintaining 
that  we  should  teach  decidedly  two  energies  of  Christ. 
Cyrus  showed  utterances  of  the  holy  Fathers,  in  which  the  pia 
evepyeia  is  used  (yes,  but  in  another  sense),  and  added  that 
often  also  the  holy  Fathers  had  shown  a  God-pleasing  pliancy 
(ol/covo^la)  towards  certain  expressions,  without  surrendering 
anything  of  their  orthodoxy  ;  and  that  now  especially,  when  the 
salvation  of  so  many  myriads  was  at  stake,  there  should  be 
no  contention  over  that  Kephalaion,  which  could  not  endanger 
orthodoxy ;  but  Sophronius  altogether  disapproved  of  this 
pliancy,  and  on  account  of  this  affair  came  with  letters  from 
Cryus  to  us,  conversed  with  us  on  the  subject,  and  demanded 

1  This  is  not  true.     Cyrus  of  Alexandria  straightway  adopted  Monothelitism 
in  his  seventh  Kephalaion.     (Remark  in  the  second  edition. ) 

2  Sergius  exaggerates,  in  order  to  make  the  Pope  favourable.     Not  all  the 
Monophysite  parties,  but  only  the  Theodorians,  had  entered  the  union. 


THE   SEEMING  "JUSTE   MILIEU  "   OF   SERGIUS.  25 

that,  after  the  union,  the  proposition  respecting  the  pia 
evepyeia  should  be  struck  from  the  Kephalaia.  This  seemed 
to  us  hard.  For  how  should  it  not  be  hard,  very  hard 
indeed,  since  by  that  means  the  union  in  Alexandria  and  all 
those  eparchies  would  be  destroyed,  among  those  who  hitherto 
had  refused  to  hear  anything  either  from  the  most  holy 
Father  Leo,  or  from  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  but  now  speak 
of  it  with  clear  voice  at  the  divine  mysteries ! 

"  After  we  had  long  discussed  this  with  Sophronius,  we 
requested  him  to  bring  forward  passages  from  the  Fathers 
which  quite  clearly  and  literally  require  the  recognition  of 
two  energies  in  Christ.  He  could  not  do  this.1  We,  how 
ever,  considering  that  controversies,  and  from  these  heresies 
might  arise,  regarded  it  as  necessary  to  bring  this  superfluous 
dispute  about  words  to  silence,  and  wrote  to  the  patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  that,  after  accomplishing  the  union,  he  should 
require  no  one  to  confess  one  or  two  energies,  but  that  con 
fession  should  be  made,  as  laid  down  by  the  holy  and 
(Ecumenical  Synods,  that  one  and  the  same  only-begotten 
Son,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  worked  (evepyelv)  both  the 
divine  and  the  human,  and  that  all  Godlike  and  human 
energies  went  forth  inseparably  (dSiapercos)  from  one  and  the 
same  Incarnate  Logos  and  referred  back  to  the  same.  The 
expression  ^la  faepyeta  should  not  be  employed,  since, 
although  it  was  used  by  some  of  the  Fathers,  it  seemed 
strange  to  many,  and  offended  their  ears,  since  they  enter 
tained  the  suspicion  that  it  was  used  in  order  to  do  away 
with  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  a  thing  to  be  avoided.  In 
like  manner,  to  speak  of  two  energies  gives  offence  with 
many,  because  this  expression  occurs  in  none  of  the  holy 
Fathers,  and  because  there  would  follow  from  thence  the 
doctrine  of  two  contradictory  wills  (Oe\rjfj,ara)  in  'Christ  (a 
false  inference ! ),  as  though  the  Logos  had  been  willing  to 

1  Sophronius,  perhaps  at  a  later  period,  collected  in  a  work  now  lost  600 
patristic  passages  in  favour  of  Dyothelitism,  as  Stephen  of  Dor  testifies. 
Another  collection  of  patristic  passages  for  Dyothelitism  by  Maximus  is  still 
extant.  S.  Maximi  Opp.  ed.  Combefis,  t.  ii.  p.  154,  and  Combefis,  Hist,  hasres. 
Monothelet.  Auduarium  Novum,  t.  ii.  p.  24.  The  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council 
(sess.  10)  also  collected  a  great  number  of  patristic  proofs  for  the  Dyothelitic 
doctrine. 


26  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

endure  the  suffering  which  brings  us  salvation,  but  the  man 
hood  had  opposed  it.  This  is  impious,  for  it  is  impossible 
that  one  and  the  same  subject  should  have  two  and,  in  one 
point,  contradictory  wills. 

"  The  Fathers  teach  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  has 
never,  separately  and  of  its  own  impulse  (opfjurj),  fulfilled  its 
natural  movement  in  opposition  to  the  leading  (vevpari)  of 
the  Logos  which  is  united  with  it,  but  only  when,  and  as,  and 
in  the  measure  in  which  the  Logos  willed  it  ;  and,  to  put  it 
plainly,  as  with  man  the  body  is  guided  by  the  reasonable 
soul,  so  in  Christ  the  whole  human  nature  is  by  the  Godhead 
of  the  Logos  ;  it  was  #eo/aV?7T09,  i.e.  moved  by  God.1  .  .  . 
Finally,  we  decide  that  in  future  Sophronius  shall  speak 
neither  of  one  nor  of  two  energies,  but  shall  content  himself 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  ;  and  the  saintly  man  was 
therewith  content,  promised  to  keep  to  this,  and  only 
requested  us  to  give  him  this  statement  in  writing  (i.e.  the 
definition  of  the  faith  given  by  Sergius,  contained  in  this 
letter),  so  that  he  might  be  able  to  show  it  to  any  who  might 
inquire  of  him  respecting  the  point  in  dispute.  We  granted 
him  this  willingly,  and  he  departed  again  from  Constantinople 
by  ship.  Shortly,  however,  the  Emperor  wrote  from  Edessa, 
requesting  us  to  extract  the  patristic  utterances  contained  in  the 
letter  of  Mennas  to  Vigilius  on  the  pia  evepyeia,  and  ev  6e\7)/j,a, 
and  send  them  to  him.  We  did  so.  Yet,  having  regard  to 
the  alarm  which  had  already  been  caused  by  this  matter,  we 
represented  to  the  Emperor  the  difficulty  of  the  subject,  and 
recommended  that  there  should  be  no  more  minute  discussion 
of  the  question,  but  that  we  should  abide  by  the  known  and 
the  universally  acknowledged  doctrine  of  the  Fathers,  and 
confess  that  the  one  and  the  same  only  begotten  Son  of  God 
worked  both  the  divine  and  the  human,  and  that  from  the 
one  and  the  same  Incarnate  Word  all  divine  and  human 
energy  proceeded  indivisibly  and  inseparably  (dpepicrTcos  KOI 


1  Sergius  shows  clearly,  by  this  comparison,  that  he  considered  the  human 
nature  in  Christ  as  purely  passive  without  a  will  of  its  own.  Our  body  is 
related  passively  to  the  soul,  is  simply  guided  by  it,  has  no  will  of  its  own,  and 
in  the  same  way,  Sergius  says,  is  the  human  nature  in  Christ  related  to  the 
divine.  (Added  to  the  second  edition.  ) 


LETTER   OF   POPE   HONORIUS   IN   THE    MONOTHEL1TE   AFFAIR.      27 


For  this  was  taught  by  the  God-bearing  Pope 
Leo  in  the  words :  '  Agit  utraque  forma  cum  alterius  com- 
munione,  quod  proprium  est.'  .  .  .  We  held  it  then  as  suitable 
and  necessary  to  make  your  fraternal  Holiness  acquainted 
with  this  matter,  enclosing  copies  of  our  letters  to  Cyrus  and 
the  Emperor,  and  we  pray  you  to  read  all  this,  and  to  complete 
what  you  find  defective,  and  to  communicate  to  us  your  view 
of  the  subject  in  writing."  : 

We  see  that  Sergius  was  willing  to  give  up  the  open 
victory  of  his  formula  pia  evepyeia ;  but  the  error  contained 
in  it  was  not  to  be  suppressed,  and  thus  he  managed  that  the 
opposite  orthodox  doctrine  of  two  energies,  Dyothelitism, 
should  be  set  aside.2 

SEC.  296.  First  Letter  of  Pope  Honoring  in  the  Monothelite 

Affair. 

Honorius,  sprung  from  a  distinguished  family  of  Campania, 
after  the  death  of  Boniface  v.,  ascended  the  Koman  throne, 
October  27,  625.  Abbot  Jonas  of  Bobio,  his  contemporary, 
describes  him  as  sagax  animo,  vigens  consilio,  doctrina  clarus, 
dulcedine  et  humilitate  pollens?  He  may  have  had  all  these 
fine  qualities,  and  especially  may  have  possessed  a  good 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  530  sqq  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1311  sqq. 

2  Sergius  says,   indeed,  that  there  was  to  be  no  more  speech  either  of  one 
energy  or  of  two  in  Christ ;  but  he  does  not  at  all  accord  an  equal  place  to  both 
expressions.      The  expression    Svo   tvtpyeiai,    he   maintains,    has   no   patristic 
authorities  whatever  for  it,  whilst  many  Fathers  had  expressed  themselves  in 
favour  of  /*la  frfyyeia,  and  the  patriarch  had  collected  many  passages  of  this 
kind  in  his  letter  to  Pope  Vigilius.     By  the  expression  pia  tvtpyeia  great  good 
fortune  had  happened  to  the  Church  (the  union  in  Alexandria),  and  in  the 
Kephalaia  of  union  the  /j.ta  must  remain  (in  spite  of  the  silence),  if  the  union  was 
not  to  be  again  destroyed.     The  Emperor,  he  said,  was  also  in  favour  of  pia 
tvtpyeia.     The  expression  Svo  tvtpyeiai,  however,  would  have  very  serious  con 
sequences  (relapse  into  Nestorianism).     Accordingly,  Sergius,  when  he  at  last 
recommended  the  avoiding  of  both  expressions,   yet  wanted   to  insinuate  to 
the  Pope,  that  pia  had  much  more  in  its  favour,  and  must  not  be  removed  from 
the  Kephalaia  of  union,  whereas  the  Svo  frtpyeiai  was  to  be  entirely  rejected. 
One  can  see  he  was  a  Monothelite,  and  wanted  to  mislead  the  Pope.     If  the 
fj.ia  tvtpy.  was  to  remain  in  the  Alexandrian  Kephalaia,  then  Monothelitism  was 
practically  approved,    and    the  whole    talk   about  future  silence  deceptive. 
(Added  in  the  second  edition. ) 

3  In  his  Vita  S.  Bertulphi,  in  Baron.  Annal.  ad  ann.  626,  39. 


28  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

acquaintance  with  theology,  and  have  fully  understood  the 
development  of  dogma  up  to  this  time ;  but  new  questions 
now  emerged,  which  at  first,  at  least,  he  did  not  see  through 
quite  clearly,  and  certainly  his  friendliness  and  amiability 
(dulcedo  and  humilitas)  towards  others,  especially  towards  the 
Emperor  and  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  contributed  to 
land  him  in  error. 

The  letter  which  he  wrote  in  answer  to  Sergius  is  no 
longer  extant  in  the  Latin  original ;  but  we  still  possess  the 
Greek  translation  which  was  read  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  and  then  compared  by  a  Eoman  delegate  with  the 
Latin  original  then  extant  in  the  patriarchal  archives  at 
Constantinople,  and  found  to  be  correct.  From  the  Greek 
translation  the  two  old  Latin  versions  were  made,  which  are 
printed  in  Mansi  and  Hardouin,1  and  of  which  the  first  must 
have  been  prepared  by  the  Eoman  librarian  Anastasius.2 

The  letter  of  Honorius  is  as  follows :  "  Your  letter,  my 
brother,  I  have  received,  and  have  learnt  from  it  that  new 
controversies  have  been  stirred  up  by  a  certain  Sophronius, 
then  a  monk,  now  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  against  our  brother 
Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  who  proclaimed  to  those  returning  from 
heresy  one  energy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  Sophronius 
afterwards  visited  you,  brought  forward  the  same  complaint, 
and  after  much  instruction  requested  that  what  he  had  heard 
from  you  might  be  imparted  to  him  in  writing.  Of  this 
letter  of  yours  to  Sophronius  we  have  received  from  you  a 
copy,  and,  after  having  read  it,  we  commend  you  that  your 
brotherliness  has  removed  the  new  expression  (fjuia  evepyeia), 
which  might  give  offence  to  the  simple.  For  we  must  walk 
in  that  which  we  have  learned.  By  the  leading  of  God  we 
came  to  the  measure  of  the  true  faith,  which  the  apostles  of 
the  truth  have  spread  abroad  by  the  light  (Lout,  rule)  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  confessing  that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,  worked  the  divine  \vorks  by 
means  (/JiecriTevcrdo-ijs)  of  the  manhood,  which  was  hyposta tic- 
ally  united  to  Him,  the  Logos,  and  that  the  same  worked 
the  human  works,  since  the  flesh  was  assumed  by  the  God- 

1  Mansi,  t.  xx.  p.  538  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1319  sqq.,  and  p.  1593  sqq. 

2  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  14. 


LETTER   OF   POPE   HONORIUS   IN   THE   MONOTHELITE   AFFAIR.      29 

head  in  an  unspeakable,  unique  manner,  aSiaip&roos,  arpeir- 
T&>9,  do-vyxyrcos,  reXetW  And  He  who  shone  in  the  flesh, 
through  His  miracles,  in  perfect  Godhead,  is  the  same  who 
worked  (eveytfo-as,  Lat.  patitur)  the  conditions  of  the  flesh  in 
dishonourable  suffering,  perfect  God  and  man.  He  is  the  one 
Mediator  between  God  and  men  in  two  natures.  The  Word 
became  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us.  He  is  the  Son  of  Man,  who 
came  down  from  heaven,  and  one  and  the  same  is  the  Lord 
of  glory  who  was  crucified,  whilst  we  still  confess  that  the 
Godhead  is  in  no  way  subject  to  human  suffering.  And  the 
flesh  was  not  from  heaven,  but  was  taken  from  the  holy  God- 
bearer,  for  the  Truth  says  in  the  Gospel  of  Himself  :  '  No 
man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  He  that  came  down 
from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  Man  which  is  in  heaven ' 
(S.  John  iii.  13),  teaching  us  clearly  that  the  flesh  which  was 
susceptible  of  suffering  was  united  with  the  Godhead  in  an 
unspeakable  and  unique  manner ;  on  the  one  hand  distinct 
and  unmingled,  on  the  other  unseparated;  so  that  the  union 
must  be  wonderfully  thought  of  under  the  continuance  of 
both  natures.  In  agreement  with  this,  says  the  apostle 
(1  Cor.  ii.  8),  '  They  crucified  the  Lord  of  Glory/  whilst  yet 
the  Godhead  could  neither  be  crucified  nor  suffer ;  but  on 
account  of  that  unspeakable  union  we  can  say  both,  God  has 
suffered,  and  the  Manhood  came  down  from  heaven  with  the 
Godhead  (S.  John  iii.  13).  Whence,  also,  we  confess  one  will 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  (o6ev  KCLI  ev  0e\rjfj.a  6/jio'\.oryov/JLev 
TOV  Kvpiov  ^Irjcrov  Xpio-rov  =  unde  et  unam  voluntatem  fatemur 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi),  since  our  (human)  nature  was 
plainly  assumed  by  the  Godhead,  and  this  being  faultless,  as 
it  was  before  the  Fall.  For  Christ,  coming  in  the  form  of 
sinful  flesh,  took  away  the  sin  of  the  world,  and  assuming 
the  form  of  a  servant,  He  is  habitu  inventus  ut  homo.  As  He 
was  conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  so  was  He  also  born  with 
out  sin  of  the  holy  and  immaculate  Virgin,  the  God-bearer, 
without  experiencing  any  contamination  of  the  vitiata  natura. 
The  expression  flesh  is  used  in  the  Holy  Scripture  in  a  double 
sense,  a  good  and  a  bad.  Thus  it  is  written  (Gen.  vi.  3) : 
'  My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive  with  man,  for  that  he  also 
is  flesh;'  and  the  apostle  says  (1  Cor.  xv.  50):  'Flesh  and 


30  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.'  And  again 
(Eom.  vii.  23)  :  'I  see  another  law  in  my  members,  warring 
against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me  into  captivity  to 
the  law  of  sin  which  is  in  my  members.'  Many  other 
passages  must  also  be  understood  of  the  flesh  in  the  bad 
sense.  In  the  good  sense,  however,  the  expression  is  used  by 
Isaiah  (Ixvi.  23):  'All  flesh  shall  come  to  Jerusalem  to 
worship  before  Me/  So  Job  (xix.  26):  'In  my  flesh  shall  I 
see  God;'  and  elsewhere  (S.  Luke  iii.  6):  'All  flesh  shall 
see  the  salvation  of  God.' 

"  It  is  this,  as  we  said,  not  the  vitiata  natura  which  was 
assumed  by  the  Eedeemer,  which  would  war  against  the  law 
of  His  mind  ;  but  He  came  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was 
lost,  i.e.  the  vitiata  natura  of  the  human  race.  In  His  members 
there  was  not  another  law  (Eom.  vii.  23),  or  a  diversa  vel 
contraria  Salvatori  voluntas,  because  He  was  born  supra  legem 
of  human  condition ;  and  if  He  says  in  the  Holy  Spirit :  '  I 
came  down  from  heaven  not  to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  Me'  (S.  John  vi.  38),  and  (S.  Mark 
xiv.  36):  'Nevertheless,  not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou 
wilt,'  and  the  like,  these  are  not  expressions  of  a  voluntas 
diversa,  but  of  the  accommodation  (oltcovo/jLias,  dispensations) 
of  the  assumed  manhood.  For  this  is  said  for  our  sakes, 
that  we,  following  His  footsteps,  should  do  not  our  own  will, 
but  that  of  the  Father. 

"  We  will  now,  entering  upon  the  royal  way,  avoid  the 
snares  of  the  hunters  right  and  left,  in  order  that  we  dash 
not  our  foot  against  a  stone.  We  will  go  in  the  path  of  our 
predecessors  (i.e.  hold  fast  to  the  old  formulse  and  avoid  the 
new).  And  if  some  who,  so  to  speak,  stammer,  think  to 
explain  the  matter  better,  and  give  themselves  out  as 
teachers,  yet  may  we  not  make  their  statements  to  be 
Church  dogmas,  as,  for  example,  that  in  Christ  there  is  one 
energy  or  two,  since  neither  the  Gospels  nor  the  letters  of 
the  apostles,  nor  yet  the  Synods,  have  laid  this  down.  That 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  and  the  Word  of  God,  by 
whom  all  things  were  made,  the  one  and  the  same, 
perfectly  works  divine  and  human  works,  is  shown  quite 
clearly  by  the  Holy  Scriptures;  but  whether  on  account  of 


I 

LETTER   OF   POPE   HONORIUS   IN   THE   MONOTHELITE   AFFAIR.      31 

the  works  of  the  Godhead  and  manhood  (opera  divinitatis  et 
humanitatis)  it  is  suitable  to  think  and  to  speak  of  one  or 
two  energies  (operationes)  as  present,  we  cannot  tell,  we  leave 
that  to  the  grammarians,  who  sell  to  boys  the  expressions 
invented  by  them,  in  order  to  attract  them  to  themselves. 
For  we  have  not  learnt  from  the  Bible  that  Christ  and  His 
Holy  Spirit  have  one  or  two  energies ;  but  that  He  works 
in  manifold  ways  (TroXur/ooTrft)?  evepyovvra).  For  it  is 
written :  '  If  any  man  have  not  the  Spirit  of  Christ,  he  is 
none  of  His '  (Kom.  viii.  9) ;  and  again  :  '  No  one  can  say, 
Lord  Jesus,  but  in  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  gifts  are  diverse, 
but  there  is  one  Spirit ;  and  the  offices  are  diverse,  but  there 
is  one  Lord  ;  and  the  operations  are  diverse,  but  it  is  one 
God  that  worketh  all  in  all.'  If,  however,  there  are  many 
diversities  of  operations,  and  God  works  them  all  in  all  the 
members  of  the  great  body,  how  much  more  does  this 
prevail  in  the  Head  (of  that  mystical  Body),  Christ  the 
Lord  ?  ...  If  the  Spirit  of  Christ  works  in  His  members 
in  many  ways,  how  much  more  must  we  confess  that,  by 
Himself,  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  He  works 
most  perfectly,  and  in  manifold  ways,  through  the  communion 
of  the  two  natures  ?  We,  however,  wish  to  think  and  to 
breathe  according  to  the  utterances  of  Holy  Scripture, 
rejecting  everything  which,  as  a  novelty  in  words,  might 
cause  uneasiness  in  the  Church  of  God,  so  that  those  who  are 
under  age  may  not,  taking  offence  at  the  expression  two 
energies,  hold  us  for  Nestorians,  and  that  (on  the  other 
side)  we  may  not  seem  to  simple  ears  to  teach  Eutychianism, 
when  we  clearly  confess  only  one  energy.  We  must  be  on 
our  guard  lestj  after  the  evil  weapons  of  those  enemies  are 
burnt,  from  their  ashes  new  flames  of  scorching  questions 
may  be  kindled.  In  simplicity  and  truth  we  will  confess 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  one  and  the  same,  works  in  the 
divine  and  in  the  human  nature.  It  is  much  better  if  the 
empty,  idle,  and  paganising  philosophers,  who  weigh  out  the 
natures,  proudly  raise  their  croaking  against  us,  than  that 
the  people  of  Christ,  simple  and  poor  in  spirit,  should  remain 
unsatisfied.  No  one  can  deceive  the  scholars  of  fishermen 
by  philosophy  They  follow  the  doctrine  of  these  (the 


32  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

fishermen).  All  the  arguments  of  cunning  disputation 
are  crushed  in  their  nets.  This  will  you  also,  my  brother, 
proclaim  with  us,  as  we  do  it  with  one  mind  with  you  ;  and 
we  exhort  you  that  you,  fleeing  from  the  new  manner  of 
speech  of  one  energy  or  two,  with  us  proclaim  one  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  true  God,  in  two 
natures  working  the  divine  and  human."  l 

We  feel  bound  clearly  to  indicate  every  considerable 
departure  of  this  second  edition  of  our  history  from  the 
first  in  causa  ffonorii,  that  everyone  may  understand  how  we 
have  previously  judged,  and  what  we  now  think  on  this 
subject.  For  this  reason  we  repeat,  first  of  all,  the  remarks 
with  which  we  accompanied  this  letter  of  Honorius  in  the 
first  edition  :  "  We  see  that  Honorius  started  from  the  dogma, 
—  The  two  natures  in  Christ  are  hypostatically  united  in  the 
one  Person  of  the  Logos.  If,  however,  there  is  only  one 
Person,  then  is  there  but  one  Worker  present,  and  the  one 
Christ  and  Lord  works  both  the  human  and  the  divine  works, 
the  former  by  means  of  the  human  nature. 

"  Honorius  did  not  grasp  the  subject  aright  at  the  very 
beginning.  He  ought  to  have  put  the  question  thus  :  From 
the  one  personality  of  Christ  there  follows  necessarily  only 
one  energy  and  one  will,  or  is  energy  and  will  more  a 
matter  of  nature  (than  of  person),  and,  in  that  case,  has  not 
the  duality  of  natures  in  Christ  also  the  duality  of  wills  and 
operations  as  a  consequence  ?  Now,  this  question  he  could 
have  solved  by  a  glance  at  the  Trinity.  In  this  there  are 
three  Persons,  but  not  three  wills,  but  one  nature  (essence) 
and,  accordingly,  only  one  will.  But  not  considering  this, 
he  argues  briefly,  but  inappropriately,  '  Where  there  is  only 
one  Person  there  is  only  one  Worker,  and  therefore  only 
one  will.'  But  however  decidedly  Honorius,  from  this 
premiss,  maintains  the  ev  OcXy/ma,  he  yet  decidedly  rejects 
the  pta  evepryeia.  This  one  Worker,  Christ,  he  says,  works  in 
many  ways,  and  therefore  we  should  teach  neither  filav 
nor  Svo  evepyetas,  but  evepyel  TrdXvrpoTra)^.  Honorius 


1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  538  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1319  sqq.  In  the  first  edition 
the  letter  of  Honorius  was  given  somewhat  less  completely.  But  no  passage  of 
importance  was  omitted. 


LETTER  OF   POPE   HONORIUS  IN    THE  MONOTHELITE  AFFAIR.      33 

has  here  misunderstood,  or  wished  to  misunderstand,  the 
significance  of  the  technical  terms.  He  takes  them  as 
identical  with  the  concrete  workings,  instead  of  with  the  ways 
of  working. 

"  These  expressions,  /ua  evepyeia  and  Bvo  evepyeicu,  he 
proceeds,  are,  moreover,  approved  neither  by  the  Holy 
Scriptures  nor  by  the  Synods ;  and  they  should  be  avoided, 
because  their  use  produces  new  controversies.  But  why  was 
there  in  Christ  only  one  will  ?  Because,  says  Honorius,  He 
assumed,  not  the  human  nature  which  was  corrupted  by  the 
Fall,  but  the  uncorrupted  nature,  as  it  was  before  the  Fall. 
In  the  ordinary  man  there  are  certainly  two  wills — a  will  of 
the  mind  and  a  will  of  the  members  (Eom.  vii.  23);  but  the 
latter  is  only  a  consequence  of  the  Fall,  and  therefore  could 
not  exist  in  Christ.  So  far  Honorius  was  quite  on  the  right 
way ;  but  he  did  not  accurately  draw  the  inferences.  He 
ought  now  to  have  said :  Hence  it  follows  that  in  Christ, 
since  He  was  God  and  man  at  the  same  time,  together  with 
His  divine  will,  which  is  eternally  identical  with  that  of  the 
Father,  only  the  incorrupt  human  will,  which  never  opposes 
the  divine  will,  could  be  assumed,  and. not  also  the  opposing 
will  of  the  members. 

"  This  would  have  been  the  natural  and  necessary 
inference ;  but  instead  of  drawing  this,  he  leaves  the  incorrupt 
human  will  either  entirely  out  of  account,  or  more  accurately, 
he  identifies  it  with  the  divine  will.  Because  the  incorrupt 
human  will  of  Christ  is  always  subject  and  conformed  to  the 
divine,  Honorius  exchanged  this  moral  unity  of  both  with 
unity  in  general,  or  physical  unity,  with  the  latter  of  which 
we  have  here  to  do.  Even  the  clear  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture,  in  which  Christ  distinguishes  His  human  will  from 
that  of  the  Father,  could  not  decide  him  to  recognise  this 
human  will.  Exchanging  difference  for  opposition,  he 
thought  it  inadmissible  to  have  two  distinct  wills  in  Christ, 
lest  he  should  be  forced  to  admit,  in  a  heretical  sense,  two 
opposed  and  mutually  contradictory  wills  in  them."  1 

To  this  criticism  we  will  add  what  we  remarked  before, 

1  Compare   the    author's    treatise,  Das    Anathem    uber  Honorius,  in    the 
Tiibingen  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1857,  Heft  i. 

v-— 3 


34  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

in  the  first  edition,  on  the  second  letter  of  Honorius : l  "  He 
now  says  quite  correctly,  the  divine  nature  in  Christ  works  the 
divine,  and  the  human  nature  performs  that  which  is  of  the 
flesh,  and  we  proclaim  the  two  natures,  which  work  unconfused, 
in  the  one  Person  of  the  only -begotten  Son  of  God,  that  which  is 
proper  to  them.  In  this  Honorius  pronounces  the  orthodox 
doctrine,  and  it  would  be  quite  incorrect  to  charge  him  with 
heresy."  It  is  thus  clear  that  we  always  were  of  the 
opinion  that  Honorius  was  quite  orthodox  in  thought,  but, 
especially  in  his  first  letter,  he  had  unhappily  expressed 
himself  in  a  Monothelite  fashion.  The  same  fundamental 
thought  we  also  placed  at  the  head  of  our  pamphlet  composed 
during  the  Vatican  Council  in  Eome :  Causa  Honorii  Papce, 
the  first  sentence  of  which  runs  thus,  Non  ea  res  agitur 
utrum  Honorius  Papa  in  intimo  corde  suo  heterodoxe  senserit, 
nee  ne.  Still  more  clearly  we  explained  ourselves  there 
(p.  14):  Eum  (Honoriivrri)  itaqiw  in  corde  hceretice  non  sensisse, 
at  tamen  reapse  terminum  specifice  orthodoxum  (&vo  evepyeiat) 
damnasse,  et  terminum  specifice  hcereticum  (ev  Oe\rjfj>a)  sanci- 
msse. 

This  fundamental  position  I  must  still  retain,  that 
Honorius  at  heart  thought  rightly,  but  expressed  himself 
unhappily  ;  even  if,  in  what  follows,  as  a  result  of  repeated 
new  investigation  of  this  subject,  and  having  regard  to  what 
others  have  more  recently  written  in  defence  of  Pope 
Honorius,  I  now  modify  or  abandon  many  details  of  my 
earlier  statements,  and,  in  particular,  form  a  milder  judgment 
of  the  first  letter  of  Honorius. 

That  Honorius  did  in  fact  think  in  an  orthodox  sense  is 
unmistakably  plain  from  the  following.  In  his  first  letter 
he  placed  himself  exactly  on  the  standpoint  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  and  the  Epistola  dogmatica  of  Leo  the  Great,  and 
starts  quite  correctly  with  the  dogma  :  In  Christ  there  are  two 
natures,  the  divine  and  the  human,  hypostatically  united  in  the 
divine  Person  of  the  Logos,  and  this  aSiaiperw,  arpeTrTws, 
acrvyxyTws.  Christ  is  accordingly  perfect  God  and  perfect 
man  (plene  Deus  et  homo).  This  one  Person,  the  Incarnate 
Logos,  works  both  the  divine  and  the  human  (there  is  only 

1  The  following,  to  the  end  of  the  paragraph,  is  added  to  the  new  edition. 


LETTER  OF   POPE   HONOEIUS  IN  THE   MONOTHELITE  AFFAIR.      35 

one  Worker), — the  divine  by  mediation  of  the  manhood,  the 
human  .  .  .  without  detracting  from  the  Godhead  (plena 
Deitate),  and,  on  account  of  this  ineffable  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  nature,  we  may  say  (per  communionem  idiomatum) : 
"  God  suffered,"  and  "  Man  came  down  from  heaven." 

On  this  Chalcedonian  standpoint  Honorius  wished  to 
remain,  and  again  to  cover  up  in  silence  the  questions  which 
had  recently  been  cast  up,  and  which  had  disturbed  the 
peace  of  the  Church.  Instead  of  solving  these  questions,  as 
was  possible,  by  correct  inferences  from  the  decisions  in 
regard  to  the  faith  laid  down  at  Chalcedon,  Honorius  wished 
to  stifle  them.  It  might  have  been  well,  perhaps,  if  he  had 
succeeded  in  this ;  but  he  did  not  succeed,  and  his  attempt 
to  put  them  down  was  injurious  to  him  and  to  the  Church. 
As  with  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  he  confessed  so  energetic 
ally  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  and 
added  that  each  of  these  had  remained  in  its  perfection 
(plene  Deus  et  homo  and  plena  divinitate,  plena  carne),  also 
that  the  differences  of  the  natures  had  remained,  he  ought  to 
have  inferred  from  this,  that  there  were  only  two  energies 
and  two  wills  (the  divine  and  the  human)  in  Christ ;  for  a 
nature  without  will  and  energy  is  not  a  perfect  one  (plena), 
indeed,  scarcely  a  nature  at  all.  But  this  inference,  which 
resulted  from  his  premisses,  he  did  not  set  forth  clearly  either 
in  regard  to  the  wills  or  the  energies. 

In  the  first  respect  (in  regard  to  the  wills),  he  seems 
even  to  maintain  the  opposite.  Speaking  of  the  ineffabilis 
conjunctio  of  the  two  natures,  he  proceeds  :  Unde  (o6ev)  et 
unam  wluntatem  fatemur  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  It  is 
this  very  unde  which  occasioned  our  saying  in  the  first 
edition :  "  Honorius  inferred  that  as  there  was  only  one  who 
willed,  therefore  there  was  only  one  will  "  ;  and  "  he  laid  the 
will  on  the  side  of  the  person  instead  of  on  the  side  of  the 
nature"  These  statements  we  can  no  longer  fully  maintain  ; 
on  the  contrary,  even  in  the  first  letter  of  Honorius,  the 
words  opera  divinitatis  et  humanitatis  show  that  the  humanitas 
and  the  divinitas,  and  thus  each  nature,  works  and  wills.  In 
the  second  letter  of  Honorius,  as  we  shall  see,  the  will  is  still 
more  clearly  placed  on  the  side  of  the  nature. 


36  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

Let  us  now  consider  in  what  connection  the  unhappy 
sentence,  Unde  et  unam  voluntatem  fatemur  Domini  nostri  Jesu 
Christi,  stands,  which  literally  taken  is  quite  Monothelite. 
Honorius  intended  to  reply  to  the  remark  of  Sergius,  who  had 
written  :  "  The  admission  of  two  energies  would  also  lead  to 
the  admission  of  two  wills  in  Christ,  of  which  the  one  is  opposed 
to  the  other,  since  the  Logos  is  willing  to  endure  suffering,  but 
the  manhood  opposes.  This  is,  however,  quite  inaccurate,  for 
in  one  subject  there  cannot  be  two  contrarice  voluntates." 
Entering  upon  this,  Honorius  says  :  Unam  voluntatem  fatemur 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi.  This  means  at  the  first  glance  : 
"  You  are  right,  Sergius  ;  we  cannot  admit  two  wills  in  Christ." 
As  reason,  however,  why  we  should  admit  only  unam  volun 
tatem  in  Christ,  Honorius  proceeds  :  "  Christ  did  not  assume 
the  natura  vitiata  with  its  corrupt  will  (lex  membrorum  et 
carnis),  but  the  uncorrupted  human  nature,  as  it  was  before 
the  Fall."  Quite  correct.  Hence  follows,  however,  not  una 
voluntas  in  Christa,  but  DU^E  voluntates,  the  divine  and  the 
incorrupt  human. 

Honorius  ought,  partly  agreeing  with  Sergius  and  partly 
correcting  him,  to  have  answered  :  (a)  "  You  are  quite  right 
in  saying  that  we  must  not  ascribe  two  contrarias  voluntates 
to  Christ,  for  He  did  not  assume  the  natura  humana  vitiata ; 
(&)  but,  nevertheless,  there  are  in  Christ  two  wills,  the  divine 
and  the  incorrupt  human."  Honorius  in  his  answer  neglected 
the  latter  side.  The  former  he  set  forth  in  the  words :  "  We 
acknowledge  only  one  will  in  Christ,  because  He  did  not 
assume  the  vitiata  natura.  If  he  thus,  to  the  ear,  uttered 
the  primary  Monothelite  proposition,  yet  it  is  clear  from  his 
own  words  that  he  in  no  way  regarded  the  incorrupt  will  of 
human  nature  as  lacking  in  Christ,  if  he  did  not  expressly 
assume  it.  He  says,  e.g.,  "  Christ  did  not  assume  the  vitiata 
natura,  quae  repugnat  legi  mentis  efus."  He  thus  recognises  in 
Christ  the  lex  mentis ;  and  this,  according  to  the  Pauline 
usage  (Eom.  vii.  23),  with  which  Honorius  is  in  accord,  is 
evidently  nothing  else  than  the  incorrupt  human  will. 

The  Monothelites,  however,  clung  simply  to  the  phrase, 
unam  voluntatem  fatemur  Domini  nostri  Jesu  Christi,  and  the 
fact  that  the  Pope  gave  utterance  to  this  their  primary 


LETTER   OF   POPE  HONORIUS    IN  THE  MONOTHELITE  AFFAIR.      37 

proposition  must  have  given  essential  assistance  to  their 
cause.  Professor  Pennacchi  of  Eome l  has  indeed  denied 
(p.  282),  in  opposition  to  me,  that  the  Monothelites  might 
have  appealed  to  Honorius  for  their  doctrine  of  only  one  will 
in  Christ ;  but  it  comes  out  quite  clearly  from  the  disputation 
of  Maximus  with  Pyrrhus,  that  the  Monothelites  adduced  that 
passage  in  the  first  letter  of  Honorius  as  on  their  side 
(see  below,  sec.  303);  and  the  Jesuit  Schneemann  says  quite 
accurately,  in  his  Studien  uber  die  Honoriusfrage ;  (Herder, 
Freiburg  1864,  S.  16):  "It  is  certain  that  the  conduct  of 
Honorius  was  at  least  a  mischievous  error,  and  gave  the 
greatest  assistance  to  the  Monothelite  heresy.  Encouraged 
and  supported  by  his  letters,  the  Greek  Emperors  put  forth 
the  EctJiesis  and  the  milder  form  of  it,  the  Typus,  and 
endeavoured  to  give  effect  to  those  decrees  by  force.  .  .  .  Nor 
can  we  say  that  the  error  of  Honorius  was  quite  excusable. 
If  he  had  gone  to  work  with  more  consideration  and  examina 
tion,  the  endeavour  of  the  Monothelite  patriarch  could  not 
have  remained  concealed  from  him  ;  and,  in  fact,  Sophronius 
had  sent  envoys  to  Eome  with  this  very  purpose." 

We  shall  shortly  see  that  the  second  successor  of  Honorius, 
Pope  John  iv.  (see  sec.  298),  tried  to  explain  and  justify  this 
unam  voluntatem,  by  saying  that  Honorius,  in  opposition  to 
Sergius,  had  only  to  speak  of  the  will  of  the  human  nature, 
and  therefore  quite  correctly  said,  we  recognise  only  one 
human  will  in  Christ.2  As,  however,  we  do  not  find  this 
kind  of  defence  satisfactory,  as  will  be  seen,  we  believe  that 
we  can  in  another  way  explain  how  Honorius  was  led  to  this 
now  ominous  phrase,  unam  voluntatem.  With  perfect  right 
he  denied  that  there  could  be  two  CONTRARY  voluntates  in 
Christ,  and  was  convinced  that  the  lex  mentis  in  Christ  was 
in  constant  harmony  with  his  voluntas  divina,  that  it  was 

1  De  Honorii  i.  Romani  Pontificis  causa  in  Concilia  vi.  Dissertatio,  Joseph! 
Pennachii,  in  Romana  studiorum  universitate  historic  ecclesiasticse  professoris 
substituti  (for  the  blind  Professor  Archbishop  Tizzani).     Ad  Patres  Concilii 
Vaticani  Romae,  1870,  287  pp. 

2  The  una  voluntas  with  Honorius  is  not,  as  is  here  maintained,  the  one 
incorrupt  human  will.     Honorius  understands  by  the  una  voluntate  the  moral 
unity  of  the  incorrupt  human  will  with  the  divine  will  in  Christ.      (Note  in 
the  second  edition.) 


38  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

always  morally  one  with  it,  and  this  unitas  moralis  he  wished 
to  bring  out  clearly.  His  words,  Uncle  unam  wluntatem 
f (demur  Domini  Jesu  Christi,  thus  have  the  meaning :  "  On 
account  of  the  ineffdbilis  conjunctio  of  the  two  natures  in 
Christ,  there  are  in  Him,  not  two  mutually  opposed  wills,  but 
only  one  will,  taken  morally ;  i.e.  only  one  will-tendency,  one 
moral  unity  of  will,  since  in  Him  the  human  incorrupt  will 
was  always  in  conformity  with  the  divine,  and  was  always 
harmonious  with  it." 

That  Honorius  meant,  in  fact,  by  his  unam  wluntatem,  to 
express  this  moral  unity  of  will,  is  clearly  seen  from  the 
words  which  immediately  follow,  in  which  he  assigns  the 
reason  why  there  is  only  una  wluntas  in  Christ,  namely,  that 
He  had  assumed  only  the  faultless  human  nature,  as  it  were, 
before  the  Fall.  Thus  falls  away  of  itself  what  we  thought 
ourselves  justified  in  saying  in  the  first  edition  (S.  138): 
"  Honorius  interchanged  the  moral  unity  of  will  with  the 
physical"  We  added  there :  "  Even  the  clear  passages  of 
Holy  Scripture,  in  which  Christ  distinguishes  His  human  will 
from  that  of  the  Father,  could  not  decide  him  (Honorius)  to 
recognise  this  human  will."  These  are  the  passages :  "  I 
came  down  from  heaven,  not  to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  Him  that  sent  Me"  (S.  John  vi.  38);  and,  Non  quod 
Ego  volo,  sed  quod  Tu  vis,  Pater  (S.  Mark  xiv.  36). 

Honorius  adduces  these  passages  because  an  opponent 
might  infer  from  them,  that  Christ  Himself  said  that  there 
was  in  Him  a  will  contrary  to  the  divine,  and  thus  duas  con- 
trarias  voluntates.  In  opposition  to  this,  Honorius  remarks  : 
Non  sunt  Jicec  diversce  ( =  contrarice)  wluntatis,  sed  dispensa- 
tionis  humanitatis  assumptce,  i.e.  "  These  passages  do  not  refer 
to  a  will  in  Christ  which  is  opposed  to  the  divine,  but  to  an 
accommodation  of  the  human  nature  assumed.  For  our  sakes 
has  Christ  thus  spoken,  to  give  us  an  example,  that  we,  fol 
lowing  in  His  footsteps,  should  ever  subject  our  will  to  the 
divine."  It  is  clear,  then,  that  he  thus  denied  in  Christ  only 
a  human  will  which  was  opposed  to  the  divine,  but  not  the 
human  will  generally.  But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  are 
we  to  understand  by  the  words  dispensationis  (olKovofiia^) 
humanitatis  assumptce.  In  the  first  edition  (S.  135),  we 


LETTER   OF   POPE   HONOEIUS   IN  THE   MONOTHELITE  AFFAIR.      39 

translated :  "  (Christ  spoke  those  words)  from  economy 
(accommodation)  with  respect  to  mankind,  whose  nature  He 
assumed."  How  this  is  to  be  understood  we  did  not  explain, 
but  Schneemann  contests  the  accuracy  of  this  translation, 
since  under  suscepta  humanitas  we  are  plainly  to  understand 
the  singular  human  nature  which  Christ  assumed,1  and,  by 
comparison  of  patristic  passages,  arrived  at  the  result : 
"  The  meaning  of  the  incriminated  words  of  Honorius  is  as 
follows :  The  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  in  which  the  will  of 
Christ  is  opposed  to  the  will  of  the  Father  do  not  point  to  a 
will  which  is  in  opposition  to  the  divine  will,  but  to  an 
accommodation  of  the  human  nature  assumed ;  i.e.  to  a  quite 
voluntary  condescension  to  our  weakness,  in  consequence  of 
which  the  assumed  (human)  nature  of  Christ  had  those 
volitions  of  sorrowfulness  and  fear  in  presence  of  the  suffer 
ing  willed  by  His  Heavenly  Father  "  (S.  46).  And  (S.  47) 
Honorius  says :  "  Those  affections  in  which  Christ  recoiled 
from  suffering,  and  which  He  described,  in  the  passages 
quoted,  as  acts  of  His  will  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  the 
Father,  proceeded  not  from  desire,  were  not  in  opposition  to 
His  divine  will,  because  they  were  aroused  by  voluntary 
permission  in  His  human  nature."  No  less  (S.  50):  "The 
Saviour,  according  to  Honorius,  said  these  things,  not  on  His 
own  account,  as  if  the  movements  of  His  will,  which  received 
their  description  and  their  expression  in  those  words  (the 
unwillingness  to  suffer,  etc.),  had  followed  of  necessity  from 
His  human  nature,  but  for  our  sakes,  in  order  to  give  us  an 
example,  He  assumed  that  fear  and  sorrowfulness,  and  spoke 
those  words  in  which  He  submitted  those  movements  of  His 
will  to  the  divine  will."  The  accommodation  consisted,  then, 
in  this,  that  the  opposition  of  will  to  the  suffering  willed  by 
the  Father  was  not  a  natural  necessity  in  Christ  (because  He 
assumed  human  nature),  but  that  HE  voluntarily  condescended 
to  our  weakness,  and  allowed  His  human  nature  to  receive 
those  movements  of  will.  I  wUl  not  be  answerable  for  this 
exposition  of  Schneemann's,  and  I  find  the  same  thought  in 
the  beautiful  synodal  letter  of  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem,  which 

1  Schneemann,  S.    J.,  Studien  ilber  die  Honoriusfrage,  Herder,    Freiburg 
1864,  S.  47  f. 


40  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

meets  us  in  the  following  paragraph,  and  in  which  it  is  said, 
"  He  suffered,  and  acted,  and  worked  as  man,  when  HE  Him 
self  willed,  and  when  He  regarded  it  as  useful  for  the 
onlookers,  but  not  when  the  physical  and  carnal  movements 
wished  to  be  physically  moved  to  activity,"  i.e.  non  ex  diversa 
wluntate. 

Thus  we  have  again  the  result  :  Honorius  denied  only  a 
will  in  Christ  which  opposed  the  divine,  and  was  constrained 
by  His  own  promises  to  recognise,  along  with  the  divine,  the 
will  of  the  uncorrupted  human  nature  in  Christ,  which  was 
ever  in  conformity  with  the  divine.  He  did  not,  however, 
say  this  plainly,  but  instead,  put  forth  the  unhappy  phrase 
with  the  Monothelitic  sound,  unam  voluntatem  fatemur  in 
Domino. 

In  regard,  then,  to  the  question  of  the  Energies,  Honorius, 
at  the  beginning  of  his  first  letter,  commends  the  Patriarch 
Sergius  of  Constantinople  for  having  got  rid  of  the  new 
expression,  pia  evepyeia,  "  which  might  give  offence  to  the 
simple."  He  disapproves,  then,  the  Monothelite  pia  evepyeia, 
which  of  necessity  seemed  offensive,  not  merely  to  the 
"  simple,"  but  to  all  the  orthodox.  But  he  does  not  rise  to 
seeing  clearly  that,  from  the  orthodox  point  of  view,  the 
opposite  Bvo  evepyeiai  should  be  taught  ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
towards  the  end  of  his  first  letter,  advises  them  to  use  this 
expression  just  as  little  as  the  opposite  fjula  evepyeia.  (Hortantes 
vos,  ut  unius  vel  gemince  novce  vocis  inductum  operationis  voca- 
bulum  aufugientes,  etc.1)  Here  again  we  see  that  he  had  only 
to  draw  the  proper  inferences  from  his  own  words  in  order 
to  discover  the  truth.  From  the  fact  that  he  held,  with  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  two  perfect  natures  in  Christ,  there 
follows  of  necessity  the  admission  of  two  energies  or  opera- 
Hones.  A  nature  without  energy  is  a  dead  one,  not  a  plena. 
Honorius,  moreover,  said,  at  the  end  of  his  letter  :  Christum 
in  duabus  naturis  operatum  (esse)  divinitus  et  humanitus. 
And  similarly,  at  the  beginning  of  it  :  Coruscavit  miraculis  and 
•7775  crapKos  ra?  SiaOrjcreis  rot?  ove&icriAols  rov 


1  When  we  said,  in  the  first  edition,  that  he  had  forbidden  the  term  Sto 
this  is  too  strongly  expressed.     An  actual  prohibition  was  not  put 
forth  by  Honorius. 


SYNOD  AT  JERUSALEM,  A.D.   634.  41 

The  Latin  translation  is  weaker :  Passiones  et 
opprdbria  patitur. 

About  the  middle  of  the  letter,  however,  we  read :  Opera 
divinitatis  et  humanitatis.  What  does  this  mean  but  that 
the  divine  nature  in  Christ  worked,  and  also  the  human,  i.e. 
that  we  are  to  admit  two  energies  or  operationes  in  Christ  ? 
If  Honorius,  nevertheless,  thinks  that  we  should  speak  neither 
of  one  nor  of  two  operations,  this  shows  that,  when  he  wrote 
the  first  letter,  the  expression  so  often  employed  afterwards, 
operatic  and  evepyeia,  was  not  yet  clear  to  him.  This  is 
evident  also  from  his  statement,  that  Christ  works  in 
many  ways  (TTOXUT^OTTOJ?).  By  evepyeia  and  operatio  he  under 
stands,  then,  the  concrete  workings  of  Christ,  instead  of 
the  kinds  of  working.  In  the  second  letter,  on  the  con 
trary,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  33),  he  expresses  himself  quite 
correctly. 

Moreover,  when  Honorius,  in  his  first  letter,  wished  to 
know  that  the  phrase  "  one  or  two  operations  or  energies " 
was  avoided,  he  was  influenced  by  his  desire  for  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  and  by  the  fear  lest,  under  the  una  operatio, 
Monophysitism  might  be  foisted  upon  the  Church,  or,  under 
duce  operationes,  Nestorianism.  And  we  must  not,  in  fact, 
forget  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Monothelite  controversies, 
men  were  much  less  in  a  position  to  estimate  correctly  the 
range  of  the  terms  fila  evepyeia  and  Svo  ivtpyeuu  than  at  a 
later  period. 

SEC.  297.  Synod  at  Jerusalem,  A.D.  634,  and  Synodal  Letter 
of  the  Patriarch  Sophronius}- 

Now  at  last  appeared  the  Epistola  Synodica  of  the  new 
patriarch,  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem,  whose  long  delay  had 
already  been  blamed  by  Sergius  (p.  24).  This  is  almost 
the  most  important  document  in  the  whole  Monothelite  con 
troversy  ;  a  great  theological  treatise,  which  expatiated  on  all 
the  chief  doctrines,  especially  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation, 
and  richly  discussed  the  doctrine  of  two  energies  in  Christ. 
It  brought  out  the  nature  of  the  subject,  and  Theophanes,  as 

1  This  paragraph  remains  unaltered  in  the  second  edition. 


42  HISTOKY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

well  as  the  Vita  S.  Maximi,  testifies  1  that  of  the  portion  on 
the  principal  subject,  similar  copies  were  sent  to  all  the 
patriarchs.  The  copy  which  was  sent  to  Sergius  has  come 
down  to  us  among  the  Acts  of  the  eleventh  session  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council.2  In  agreement  with  Theophanes  and 
the  author  of  the  Vita  Maximi  (ll.cc.),  the  Synodicon  says, 
Sophronius,  on  ascending  the  throne,  held  a  Synod  in  Jeru 
salem  (634),  and  here  the  rejection  of  Monothelitism  and  the 
solemn  proclamation  of  Dyothelitism  were  decreed.3  Walch  4 
holds  the  opinion  that,  at  that  time,  when  Palestine  was 
so  grievously  oppressed  by  the  Saracens,  Sophronius  could 
hardly  have  held  a  Synod,  and  even  although  his  epistle  had 
been  named  in  the  sixth  GEcumenical  Council,5  this  proves 
nothing,  as  it  had  been  the  fashion  to  call  epistles  written  on 
a  bishop's  enthronisation  (ov\\a^al  evdpovia-Tiicai)  by  the 
name  of  o-vvoSi/cd®  The  learned  man  did  not  consider  that 
at  the  consecration  of  each  new  bishop,  especially  of  a  patri 
arch,  several  bishops  had  to  be  present  and  take  part,  that  on 
such  occasions,  and  also  at  the  consecration  of  new  churches, 
it  was  customary  to  hold  Synods,  and  an  evOpovio-n/cov  for 
this  very  reason  was  called  a  <TVVO§IKOV- 

The  letter  of  Sophronius  begins  with  the  assurance  that, 
in  his  high  position,  he  longed  for  his  former  peace  and 
lowliness,  and  that  he  had  undertaken  the  bishopric  only 
when  constrained  or  even  tyrannically  compelled.  Therefore 
he  commends  himself  to  his  colleagues,  and  prays  that  they 
will  support  him  like  fathers  and  brothers.  It  was  an  old 
custom  that  a  bishop,  at  his  entrance  upon  office,  should  lay  his 
creed  before  the  other  bishops.  This  he  also  did,  and  they  could 
examine  his  confession,  and  amend  it  where  it  was  defective. 

1  Theophanes,  Chronogr.,  in  the  Bonn  edition  of  the  so-called  Byzantines, 
t.  i.  p.  507  ;   Vita  Maximi,  in  Combefis'  edition  of  the  Opp.  S.  Maximi,  t.  i. 
p.  ix.  c.  11.      Both,  however,  make  the  mistake  of  calling  the  Pope,  John. 
Honorius  lived  until  638. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  461-508  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1257-1296. 

3  Libellus  Synodicus,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  607  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1535. 

4  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  135. 

5  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  461;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1257.    We  may  add  that  Sophronius 
himself  calls  his  letter  once  <rv\\apat  ffwoSucat,  and  again,  yp&wa.  avvoducdv. 
Mansi,  I.e.  p.  472  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1265. 

6  Bingham,  Origines,  t.  i.  p.  171  sq. 


SYNOD  AT  JERUSALEM,  A.D.   634.  43 

After  this  Introduction  follows  the  kernel  of  the  whole 
letter  in  the  form  of  a  Creed.     The  first  passage  treats  of  the 
Trinity  without   touching  upon   the   procession  of   the   Holy 
Ghost  from  the  Son.     The  second  part,  which  is  much  more 
complete,  is  dedicated  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  and 
speaks,  in  the    spirit  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  of  the 
Edict  of  Justinian  against  the  Three  Chapters  (vol.  iv.  sec.  263), 
of  a   pia    vTToaracris  XpiaTov   avvQeTos,  repeats   Cyril's    ex 
pression, /xta  </wcri5  rov  ©eov  Aoyov  crecra/JKw/Ae'z'?/,  and  opposes 
Docetism,  Nestorianism,  and  Monophysitism.     After  bringing 
out  very  clearly  the  unity  of  the  person  and  the  duality  of 
the  natures,  Sophronius  passes  on  thus  to  the  new  question : 
"  Christ  is  ei>  Kal  &vo.     He  is  ONE  in  hypostasis  and  person, 
but  two  in  natures  and  in  their  natural  properties.      Of  these 
HE  is  permanently  one,  and  yet  ceases  not  to  be  dual  in 
nature.     Therefore  one  and  the  same  Christ  and  Son  and  only- 
begotten   is  recognised   undivided  in   both   natures,  and  HE 
worked  ^uo-t/ow?  the  works  of  each  nature  (ovaia),  according 
to  the  essential  quality  or  natural  property  belonging  to  each 
nature,1  which  would  not  have  been  possible  if  He  possessed 
only  one  single  or  composite  nature  as  well  as  one  hypostasis. 
He  who  is  one  and  the  same  could  not  then  have  perfectly 
performed   the   works   of  each  nature.     .For   when    did  the 
Godhead  without  a  body  perform   the  works    of    the    body 
(/JUG-^W?  1     Or  when  did  a  body,  unconnected  with  the  God 
head,  perform  works  which  belong  essentially  to  the  Godhead  ? 
Emmanuel,  however,  who  is  one,  and  in  this  unity  two,  God 
and  man,  did  in  truth  perform  the  works  of  each  of  the  two 
natures :  one  and  the  same,  as  God  the  divine,  as  man  the 
human.      One  and  the  same  HE   acts   and   speaks   divinely 
and  humanly.       It    is   not   one    who   worked    the   miracles, 
another  who  performed  the  human  works  and  endured  the 
sufferings,  as  Nestorius  thought,  but  one  and  the  same  Christ 
and  Son  performed  the  divine  and  the  human,  but  /car  a\\o 

1  Mansi  has  here,  by  a  misprint,  given  a  wrong  text.  The  correct  runs  :  Kal 
TO,  erfyas  0i/<riKws  oixrias  elpyd^ero,  Kara  TT]V  eKartpq.  irpo<rov<rav  ovcriuid-rj  71-016x77x01 
1)  Kal  0wn/cT>  t'StoTT/ra.  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1272  ;  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  480.  Rosier,  in  his 
Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvdter,  Bd.  x.  S.  414,  gives  the  inaccurate  text  of  Mansi 
and  a  very  incorrect  translation. 


44  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Kal  aAAo,  as  S.  Cyril  taught.  In  each  of  the  two  natures  he 
had  the  power  (egovo-lav,  i.e.  for  natural  working)  unconfused, 
but  also  unseparated.  In  so  far  as  He  is  eternal  God,  He 
performed  the  miracles ;  but  in  so  far  as,  in  the  last  times, 
He  became  man,  did  He  perform  the  humble  and  human 
works.  As  in  Christ  each  nature  possesses  its  property 
inviolable,  so  each  form  (nature)  works,  in  communion  with 
the  other,  what  is  proper  to  itself.1  The  Logos  works  what 
belongs  to  the  Logos,  in  communion  with  the  body ;  and  the 
body  accomplishes  what  belongs  to  the  body,2  in  union  with 
the  Logos,  and  yet  in  one  hypostasis,  far  from  any  separation  ; 
for  not  as  separated  did  they  (the  two  formce)  work  that 
which  was  proper  to  them,  so  that  we  cannot  think  of  a 
separation  of  them  (the  formce).  Therefore  Nestorius  has  no 
cause  for  rejoicing ;  for  neither  of  the  two  natures  worked  by 
itself,  and  without  communion  with  the  other,  that  which  is 
proper  to  it,  and  we  do  not  teach,  as  he  did,  two  working 
Christs  and  Sons,  although  we  recognise  two  forms  working 
in  communion,  each  of  which  works  according  to  its  own 
natural  property.  Moreover,  we  say,  there  is  one  and  the 
same  Christ  who  has  physically  accomplished  the  lofty  and 
the  lowly  according  to  the  physical  and  essential  quality  of 
each  of  His  two  natures ;  for  the  unchanged  and  unmingled 
natures  were  in  no  way  deprived  of  those  (special  qualities 
and  properties).  Nor  have  Eutyches  and  Dioscurus  reason 
for  rejoicing,  those  teachers  of  the  divine  mingling ;  for  each 
nature  has  in  communion  with  the  other  accomplished  that 
which  is  proper  to  it,  without  separation  and  without  inter 
change,  preserving  its  distinction  from  the  other.  Therefore, 
as  on  the  one  side  we  teach  that  one  and  the  same  Christ 
and  Son  works  both,  so  on  the  other  side,  by  the  proposi 
tion  that  each  form  works  in  communion  with  the  other 
what  is  proper  to  itself,  whilst  there  are  in  Christ  two  forms 
working  naturally  what  is  proper  to  them,  so  we,  as 
orthodox  Christians,  indicate  110  separation,  rejecting  both 
the  Eutychians  and  the  Nestorians,  who,  although  opposed 

1  The  words  of  Leo  I.   in  his  famous  Epistola,  ad  Flavianum  :   "  Agit  enini 
utraque  forma  (natura)  cum  alterius  comnmnione,  quod  proprium  est." 

2  Sophronius  here  takes  ercD/m  as  identical  with  cra/>£  =  human  nature. 


SYNOD   AT   JERUSALEM,   A.D.   634.  45 

to   each   other,  yet  take   common  part  in  the  impious    war 
against  us. 

"  Not  regarding  these,  we  recognise  the  'special  energy  of 
each  nature,  and  a  physical  energy  which  belongs  to  their 
essence,  and  which  has  communion  with  the  other,  which 
proceeds  unseparated  from  each  essence  and  nature  according 
to  the  physical  and  essential  quality  which  dwells  in  it,  and 
at  the  same  time  takes  with  it  the  unseparated  and  unmingled 
energy  of  the  other  nature  (is  united  with  it).  This  makes 
the  distinction  of  energies  in  Christ,  as  the  existence  of  the 
natures  makes  the  distinction  of  natures.  For  the  Godhead 
and  the  manhood  are  not  identical  in  their  natural  quality, 
although  they  are  united  in  one  hypos tasis  in  an  ineffable 
manner,  ...  for  God  the  Logos  is  the  Word  of  God,  and 
not  flesh,  although  He  has  also  logically  (through  the  reason) 
assumed  living  flesh,  and  united  it  with  Himself  by  hypo- 
statical  and  physical  eWcri?  (in  the  sense  of  Cyril.  Cf .  vol.  iv . 
sec.  263);  and  the  flesh  is  logically  made  alive,  but  it  is  not 
Logos,  although  it  is  the  flesh  of  God  the  Logos.  Therefore  they 
have  not,  even  after  the  hypostatic  union,  the  same  energy  un- 
distinguishable  the  one  from  the  other ;  and  we  do  not  confess 
one  only  natural  energy,  belonging  to  the  essence  and  quite  un 
distinguished  in  both,  so  that  we  may  not  press  the  two  natures 
into  one  essence  (ova La)  and  one  nature,  as  the  Acephali  do. 

"  As,  then,  we  ascribe  an  energy  of  its  own  to  each  of  the 
two  natures  which  are  united  unmingled  in  Christ,  in  order  not 
to  mingle  the  two  natures  which  are  united  but  not  mingled, 
since  the  natures  are  known  by  their  energies,  and  by  them 
alone,  and  the  difference  of  the  natures  from  the  difference  of 
the  energies,  as  those  who  have  understanding  in  these  things 
declare ;  so  we  maintain  all  the  speech  and  energy  (activity, 
action)  of  Christ,  whether  divine  and  heavenly  or  human  and 
earthly,  proceed  from  one  and  the  same  Christ  and  Son,  from 
the  one  compound  (avvOeros)  and  unique  hypostasis  which 
is  the  Incarnate  Logos  of  God,  who  brings  forth  (frvo-ircw  from 
Himself  both  energies  unseparated  and  unmixed  according  to 
(fcara)  His  natures.  According  to  His  divine  nature,  by  which 
HE  is  ofioovaios  with  the  Father,  (He  brings  forth)  the  divine 
and  ineffable  energy  ;  according  to  His  human  nature,  by  which 


46  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 


He  became  O^OOVO-LOS  with  us  man  —  the  human  and  earthly  ; 
and  the  energy  is  ever  in  accordance  with  the  nature  to  which 
(belongs.  .  .  .  •  By  this,  that  one  and  the  same  Christ  and 
Son  works  both,  HE  (Christ)  opposes  Nestorianism  ;  but  by 
this,  that  the  properties  of  each  nature  remained  unmingled, 
and  He  (Christ)  produced  the  two  energies  of  the  two  natures 
equally,  .  .  .  He  has  set  aside  Eutychianism.  Therefore,  born 
in  the  same  manner  as  we,  He  is  fed  with  milk,  grows,  passes 
through  the  bodily  changes  of  age  up  to  manhood,  felt  hunger 
and  thirst  like  us,  and  like  us  grew  weary  by  walking. 
for  He  put  forth  the  same  energy  in  walking  as  we  do, 
which  is  an  avOpwirivws  evepyovfJLevrj,  and,  going  forth  in 
accordance  with  human  nature,  was  a  proof  of  His  human 
nature.  He  went  then,  like  us,  from  one  place  to  another,  as 
He  had  truly  become  man  ;  and  as  He  possessed  our  nature 
without  diminution,  He  likewise  participated  in  the  outline 
(form)  of  the  body,  and  had  a  form  similar  to  ours.  This  is 
the  bodily  form  to  which  HE  was  shaped  in  His  mother's 
womb,  and  which  He  will  for  ever  preserve  inviolate.  There 
fore  HE  ate  when  HE  was  hungry,  drank  when  HE  was  thirsty, 
and  drank  like  a  man  ;  therefore  He  was,  when  a  child,  carried 
in  the  arms  of  the  Virgin  and  lay  on  His  mother's  bosom. 
Therefore  He  sat  down  when  He  was  weary,  and  slept  when 
He  had  need  of  sleep  ;  experienced  pain  when  He  was  struck, 
suffered  from  scourging,  and  endured  pains  of  the  body  when 
He  was  nailed  by  His  hands  and  feet  to  the  cross  ;  for  He  gave 
and  granted  to  the  human  nature,  when  HE  would,  time  to  work 
(evepyelv)  and  to  suffer,  which  is  proper  to  it,  that  His  incarna 
tion  should  not  be  regarded  as  mere  appearance.  Not  unwillingly 
or  by  constraint  did  He  undertake  this,  although  He  let  it  come 
to  Him  physically  and  humanly,  and  worked  and  acted  in 
human  movements.  Such  a  shocking  opinion  be  far  from  us  ! 
For  HE  who  endured  such  sufferings  in  the  flesh  was  God, 
who  redeemed  us  by  His  sufferings,  and  thereby  procured  for 
us  deliverance  from  suffering.  And  He  suffered  and  acted  and 
worked  humanly,  when  HE  Himself  willed,  and  when  He  regarded 
it  as  profitable  for  the  onlookers  ;  and  not  when  the  natural  and 
carnal  movements  willed  to  be  naturally  moved  to  operation; 
although  His  impious  enemies  sought  to  accomplish  their  malice 


SYNOD  AT  JERUSALEM,   A.D.   634.  47 

— (He  suffered  only  when    HE   willed).     He  had  assumed  a 
passible  and  mortal  and  perishable  body,  which  was  subject 
to  natural  and  sinless  feelings,  and  to  this  He  appointed  that, 
in  accordance  with  its   nature,  it  should  suffer   and   labour 
until  the  resurrection  from  the  dead.     For  then  He  released 
our  passible  and  mortal  and  perishable  part,  and  granted  us 
deliverance   from   this.     So   HE  voluntarily   manifested   the 
humble  and  human  as  (frvaifcw,   yet  .remaining  God  in  this. 
He  was  for  Himself  ruler  over  His  human  sufferings  and  actions, 
and  not  merely  ruler,  lut  also  Lord  over  them,  although  He  had 
become  physically  flesh  in  a  passible  nature.     Therefore  was 
His  humanity  superior  to  man,  not  as  though  His  nature  was 
not  human,  but  in  so  far  as  He  had  voluntarily  become  man, 
and  as  man  had  undertaken  sufferings,  and  not  by  compulsion 
and  of  necessity  and  against  His  will,  as  is  the  case  with  us, 
but  when  and  how  far  He  willed.     To  those  who  prepared 
sufferings    for    Him    He    gave   permission,   and    He    yielded 
approval  to   the    physically  worked    sufferings.     His   divine 
acts,  however,  the  glorious  and  exalted,  which  far  transcend 
our  poverty,  namely,  the  miracles  and  signs,  wonder-rousing 
works,  e.g.,  the  conception  without  seed,  the  leaping  of  John 
in  his  mother's  womb,  the  birth  without  fraction,  the  inviolate 
virginity,  the  heavenly  message   to   the  shepherds,  the  an 
nouncement  by  the  star  to  the  magi,  the  knowledge  without 
having  learnt  (S.  John  vii.  15),  the  change  of  the  water  into 
wine,  the  strengthening  of  the  lame,  the  healing  of  the  blind, 
etc.,  etc.,  the  sudden  feeding  of  the  hungry,  the  stilling  of  the 
wind  and  the  sea,  the  bodily  walking  on  the  waters,  the  expul 
sion  of  unclean  spirits,  the  sudden  convulsion  of  the  elements, 
the  self-opening  of  the  graves,  the  rising  from  the  dead  after 
three  days,  unhindered  going  forth  from  the  watched  grave 
in  spite  of  stone  and  seal,  the  entering  through  closed  doors, 
the  miraculous  and  corporeal  ascent  into  heaven,  and  all  of 
the  same  character,  which  is  above  our  understanding  and 
above  our  words,  and  transcends  all  human  thought,  all  these 
things  were  recognisable  proofs  of  the  divine  being  and  nature 
of  God  the  Logos,  if  they  were  performed  by  flesh  and  body, 
and  not  without  the  body  quickened  by  reason.  .  .  .   He  who, 
in   hypostasis,   is   the   one   and    unseparated   Son   with   two 


48  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

natures,  by  the  one  worked  the  divine  signs,  by  the  other 
undertook  the  lower,  and  therefore,  say  those  who  are  taught 
of  God :  If  you  hear  opposing  expressions  on  the  one  Son, 
distribute  them  according  to  the  natures ;  the  great  and 
divine  ascribe  to  the  divine  nature,  the  low  and  the  human 
to  the  human.  .  .  .  Further,  they  say,  in  regard  to  the  Son : 
All  energy  belongs  to  the  ONE  Son ;  but  to  which  nature  that 
which  is  wrought  is  proper  must  le  learnt  ly  the  understanding. 
Very  finely  do  they  teach  that  we  must  confess  one  Emmanuel, 
for  so  is  the  Incarnate  Logos  named  ;  and  this  one  (and  not  an 
aXXo?  KOI  aXXo?)  works  all,  the  high  and  the  low,  without  excep 
tion,  ...  all  words  and  deeds  (energies)  belong  to  one  and 
the  same,  although  the  one  are  Godlike,  others  manlike ; 
and,  again,  others  have  an  intermediate  character,  and  have 
the  Godlike  and  the  manlike  together.  Of  this  kind  is  that 
KOLvrf  (icaivr))  /cal  QeavSpiKrj  evepyeia  of  Dionysius  the  Areo- 
pagite,  which  is  not  one,  but  of  two  kinds,  so  far  as  it  has  at 
once  the  Godlike  and  the  human,  and,  by  a  compound  naming 
of  the  one  and  of  the  other  nature  and  essence,  completely 
discloses  each  of  the  two  energies." 

The  third  division  of  the  letter  of  Sophronius  refers  to 
the  creation  of  the  world :  "  The  Father  made  all  things 
through  the  Son  in  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  sensuous  creatures 
have  an  end,  the  intellectual  and  supersensuous  do  not  die ; 
yet  are  they  not  by  nature  immortal,  but  through  grace,  as 
the  souls  of  men  and  the  angels."  Then  the  doctrine  of  the 
pre-existence  of  souls  is  rejected,  and  this  and  other  errors  of 
Origen  condemned,  especially  the  doctrine  of  the  aTro/caTa- 
crrao-is,  against  which  Sophronius  quotes  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  on  the  end  of  the  world,  on  the  future  life,  on  hell 
and  heaven.  Further,  he  declares  his  adhesion  to  the  five 
(Ecumenical  Councils  and  their  declarations  of  faith  ;  also,  that 
he  recognises  all  the  writings  of  Cyril,  especially  those  against 
Nestorius,  his  synodal  letters  with  the  twelve  anathematisms ; 
also,  his  letter  of  union  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  157),  and  the  writings 
of  the  Orientals  agreeing  therewith ;  further,  the  letter  of 
Leo  to  Flavian,  and  all  his  letters ;  generally,  he  says  he 
accepts  all  that  the  Church  accepts,  and  rejects  all  that  she 
rejects.  In  particular,  he  pronounces  anathema  on  Simon 


SECOND   LETTER  OF   HONORIUS.       HIS   ORTHODOXY.  49 

Magus,  etc.,  etc.,  mentioning  by  name  a  great  number  of 
heretics  and  heresies  from  the  earliest  times  up  to  the  different 
Monophysite  sects  and  their  latest  leaders.  At  the  close,  he 
prays  his  colleagues  again  to  correct  what  is  defective  in  this 
synodal  letter  of  his,  which  he  will  very  thankfully  receive, 
and  commends  to  their  prayers,  himself,  his  Church,  and  the 
Emperors,  to  whom  he  wishes  victory,  especially  over  the 
Saracens,  who  at  this  time  so  grievously  afflict  and  threaten 
the  Eoman  Empire.1 

SEC.  298.  Second  Letter  of  Honorius.     His  Orthodoxy. 

What  results  the  synodal  letter  of  Sophronius  produced 
is  unknown.  We  only  know  that  Sergius,  as  one  of  the 
speakers  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  asserts,  did  not 
receive  it;  and  if  Walch  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  137),2  in  oppo 
sition  to  Combefis,  maintains  that  none  of  the  ancients  knew 
anything  of  this,  he  has  overlooked  the  passage  in  question 
in  the  synodal  Acts  just  mentioned.  Moreover,  he  is  wrong 
in  thinking  that  Sergius  made  another  attempt  to  avert  the 
threatening  storm,  and  therefore  turned  to  Cyrus  and 
Honorius.  In  favour  of  this  he  appeals  to  two  still  extant 
fragments  of  a  letter  from  Pope  Honorius  to  Sergius,  pre 
served  among  the  Acts  of  the  thirteenth  session  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council ; 3  but  these  only  show  that  the  Pope, 
and  not  Sergius,  made  repeated  attempts  to  secure  peace. 

The  first  fragment  from  the  letter  of  the  Pope  says : 
'*  We  have  also  written  to  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  that  the 
newly  invented  expression  may  be  rejected,  one  or  two 
energies,  .  .  .  for  those  who  use  such  expressions,  what  else 
do  they  want  than  the  term  :  Copying  one  or  two  natures,  so  to 
introduce  one  or  two  energies.  In  respect  to  the  natures,  the 
doctrine  of  the  Bible  is  clear ;  but  it  is  quite  idle  to  ascribe 
one  or  two  energies  to  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man." 

The  second   fragment,  at  the  close  of  the  letter,  runs : 

1  On  the  life  of  Sophronius,  cf.  the  article  in  the  Kirclicnlcxicon  of  Wetzer  and 
Welte,  s.v. 

2  Sess.  10  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  455  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1251. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  579  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1351. 

v.— 4 


50  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

"  This  we  wished  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  your  fraternity 
by  this  letter.  Moreover,  with  regard  to  the  ecclesiastical 
dogma,  and  what  we  ought  to  hold  and  teach,  on  account  of 
the  simplicity  of  men  and  to  avoid  controversies,  we  must,  as 
I  have  already  said,  assert  neither  one  nor  two  energies  in 
the  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  but  must  confess 
that  both  natures  are  naturally  united  in  the  one  Christ, 
that  each  in  communion  with  the  other  worked  and  acted 
(pperantes  atque  operatrices ;  Greek,  evepyovcras  KCU  irpaKTiicds)  ; 
the  divine  works  the  divine,  and  the  human  performs  that  which 
is  of  the  flesh  (these  are  the  well-known  words  of  Leo  I.),  with 
out  separation  and  without  mixture,  and  without  the  nature 
of  God  being  changed  into  the  manhood,  or  the  human 
nature  into  the  Godhead.  For  one  and  the  same  is  lowly 
and  exalted,  equal  to  the  Father  and  inferior  to  the  Father 
.  .  .  Thus  keeping  away,  as  I  said,  from  the  vexation  of 
new  expressions,  we  must  not  maintain  or  proclaim  either 
one  or  two  energies,  but,  instead  of  one  energy  which  some 
maintain,  we  must  confess  that  the  one  Christ,  the  Lord, 
truly  works  in  both  natures ;  and  instead  of  the  two  energies 
they  should  prefer  to  proclaim  with  us  the  two  natures,  i.e. 
the  Godhead  and  the  assumed  manhood,  which  work  what  is 
proper  to  them  (evepyovcras  ra  tSta,  propria  operantes)  in  the 
one  Person  of  the  only-begotten  Son  of  God,  unmingled  and 
unseparated  and  unchanged.  This  we  will  make  known  to 
your  brotherly  Holiness,  that  we  may  harmonise  in  the  one 
doctrine  of  the  faith.  We  also  wrote  to  our  brethren  the 
Bishops  Cyrus  and  Sophronius,  that  they  may  not  persist  in 
the  new  expressions  of  one  or  two  energies,  but  proclaim  with 
us  the  one  Christ,  the  divine  and  the  human  by  means 
of  both  natures  (we  did  this),  although  we  had  already 
emphatically  impressed  upon  the  envoys  whom  Sophronius 
sent  to  us,  that  he  should  not  persist  in  the  expression  two 
energies,  and  they  promised  it  to  us  fully  on  the  condition 
that  Cyrus  would  also  desist  from  proclaiming  fila  evepyeia." 

On  this  point  we  remarked  in  the  first  edition  (S.  147): 
"  If  we  compare  this  second  letter  with  the  first,  we  find  (a) 
before  all,  the  like  sharp  accentuating  of  the  leading  pro 
position  :  Notwithstanding  the  duality  of  the  natures  in 


SECOND  LETTER  OF   HONORIUS.       HIS   ORTHODOXY.  51 

Christ,  there  is  yet  only  one  Worker,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
who  works  the  divine  and  human  by  means  of  both  natures. 
There,  as  here,  the  willing  and  working  are  incorrectly 
regarded  as  proceeding  from  the  Person  and  not  from  the 
nature.  That  we  do  not  now  maintain  this  latter  assertion 
we  have  already  remarked  ;  and  even  if  the  first  letter  does 
not  justify  the  assumption  that  Honorius,  from  the  correct 
premiss,  there  is  only  one  Worker,  drew  the  false  inference, 
therefore  there  is  only  one  will,  for  the  will  lies  on  the  side 
of  the  person,  not  of  the  nature  ;  the  second  letter  certainly 
shows  more  clearly  that  Honorius,  too,  sought  the  will  on 
the  side  of  the  nature.  We  said,  therefore,  even  in  the  first 
edition,  (5)  "  In  this  second  letter,  however,  Honorius  deserts 
this  error  (with  which  we  charged  him),  whether  the  beauti 
ful  and  clear  explanation  of  Sophronius  helped  him  to  this,  or 
a  deeper  consideration  of  the  classical  words  of  Leo  I.,  to 
which  he  had  recourse  (agit  utraque  forma  cum  alterius  com- 
munione,  quod  proprium  est\  led  him  to  it. 

"  Setting  aside  the  unsavoury  iro\v rpoTrax;  evepyel  (of  the 
first  letter),  he  now  says  quite  correctly :  We  confess  that  the 
two  natures  are  naturally  united  in  the  one  Christ,  that  each 
works  and  acts  in  communion  with  the  other, — the  divine 
nature  in  Christ  works  the  divine,  and  the  human  performs 
that  which  is  of  the  flesh ;  and,  "  We  proclaim  the  two 
natures  which  work  unmingled  in  the  one  Person  of  the  only- 
begotten  Son  of  God  that  which  is  proper  to  them  (vropria 
operantes).  In  this  Honorius  pronounced  the  orthodox  doctrine, 
and  it  would  be  quite  wrong  to  charge  him  with  heresy." 

Thus  we  wrote  even  in  the  first  edition.  We  now  add 
that  Honorius  in  this  passage  declares  for  two  natures  in 
Christ,  and  to  each  of  the  two  natures  he  ascribes  its  own 
evepyetv,  and  therewith  also  a  will.  He  there  speaks  of  the 
two  natures  as  evepyovaas  KCLI  ^patented?  and  propria 
operantes.  But  we  must  with  all  this  repeat  what  we  said  in 
the  first  edition  :  In  contradiction  to  these  his  own  utterances, 
Honorius  yet  demands  again  the  avoidance  of  the  orthodox 
phrase,  Svo  evepyeiai.  After  himself  saying,  "  Both  natures 
work  what  is  proper  to  them,"  it  was  inconsistent  to  disapprove 
of  the  phrase,  two  energies. 


52  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

The  most  offensive  thing  in  the  first  letter  of  Honorius, 
the  expression  ev  OeXij^a,  is  no  longer  expected  in  the  frag 
ment  of  the  second  letter.1 

A  defence  of  Honorius  was  undertaken,  A.D.  641,  by  his 
second  successor,  Pope  John  iv.,  in  a  letter  to  the  Emperor 
Constantine  (son  of  Heraclius),  entitled  Apologia  pro  Honorio 
Papa.  When  Pope  John  learnt  that  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus 
of  Constantinople  appealed  to  Honorius  in  defence  of  the 
doctrine  of  one  will,  he  wrote  to  the  Emperor:  "The  whole  West 
is  scandalised  by  our  brother,  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus,  pro 
claiming,  in  his  letters  which  are  circulated  in  all  directions, 
novelties  which  are  contrary  to  the  rule  of  faith,  and  referring 
to  our  predecessor,  Pope  Honorius  of  blessed  memory,  as 
of  his  opinion,  which  was  entirely  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the 
Catholic  Father  (quod  a  mente  Catlwlici  patris  erat  penitus 
alienum).  The  Patriarch  Sergius  communicated  to  the  said 
Roman  bishop  that  some  maintained  two  contrarias  voluntates 
in  Christ.  When  the  Pope  learnt  this,  he  answered  him  : 
As  our  Redeemer  is  monadicus  unus,  so  was  HE  miraculously 
conceived  and  born  above  all  human  way  and  manner.  He 
(Honorius)  taught  that  HE  was  as  well  perfect  God  as  per 
fect  man,  bom  without  sin,  in  order  to  renew  the  noble  origin 
(originem)  which  had  been  lost  by  sin.  As  second  Adam, 
there  was  in  Him  no  sin,  either  by  birth  or  through  inter 
course  with  men.  For  when  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and 
assumed  all  that  was  ours,  He  did  not  take  on  the  vitium 
reatus  which  springs  from  the  propagation  of  sin.  He 
assumed,  from  the  inviolate  Virgin  Mary,  the  likeness  of  our 
flesh,  but  not  of  sin.  Therefore  had  Christ,  as  the  first 
Adam,  only  one  natural  will  of  His  humanity,  not  two  con- 


1  In  the  first  edition  we  added  :  "  Whether  it  (the  tv  tfA^a)  found  place  at 
all  in  the  latter  (the  second  letter)  cannot  be  decided.  In  any  case,  Honorius 
did  not  recall  it  (better,  does  not  explain  it  in  its  right  sense),  and  therefore 
the  Monothelites  had,  formally  at  least,  full  right  to  appeal  to  him  as  their  patron 
and  defender.  And  herein  lies  his  second  fault.  When,  on  the  one  side 
(negatively),  he  forbade  the  correct  expression  of  the  orthodox  doctrine  (dtio 
ep^pyetcu),  so,  on  the  other  side  (positively),  he  pronounced  the  terminus 
kchnicus  of  the  heresy.  And  yet  even  on  this  point  his  thought  was  not 
heretical,  but  only  obscure,  as  we  showed  above,  and  he  only  failed  to  draw  the 
right  inference  from  his  own  premiss.  This  remark  in  the  first  edition  finds  its 
connection,  as  far  as  that  is  necessary,  in  what  is  said  above  (pp.  36,  41,  44,  n.  1). 


SECOND   LETTER  OF   HONOR1US.       HIS   ORTHODOXY.  53 

trarias  voluntates,  as  we  who  are  born  of  the  sin  of  Adam, 
...  In  such  wise  our  predecessor  Honorius  answered 
Sergius,  that  there  were  not  in  the  Redeemer  two  contrarice 
voluntates,  i.e.  also  a  voluntas  in  membris,  as  HE  had  assumed 
nothing  of  the  sin  of  the  first  man.  The  Eedeemer  did 
indeed  assume  our  nature,  but  not  the  culpa  criminis.  Let, 
then,  no  unintelligent  critic  blame  Honorius,  that  he  speaks 
only  of  the  human  and  not  also  of  the  divine  nature,  but  let 
him  know  that  he  answered  that  concerning  which  the  patriarch 
inquired.  Where  the  wound  is,  there  the  healing  is  applied. 
Even  the  apostle  has  sometimes  brought  forward  the  divine, 
and  sometimes  the  human  nature  of  Christ  alone."  l 

As  second  defender  of  Honorius,  the  Roman  abbot, 
Joannes  Symponus,  is  brought  forward,  and  first  by  S. 
Maximus  in  his  disputation  with  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus  of 
Constantinople  (see  below,  sec.  303).  Honorius  had  made 
use  of  Joannes  in  the  composition  of  his  letter.  When 
Pyrrhus  offered  the  objection  :  "  What  have  you  to  answer 
for  Honorius,  who  quite  plainly  traced  out  to  my  predecessor 
one  will  in  Christ  ?  "  Maximus  answered  :  "  Who  is  the  trust 
worthy  interpreter  of  this  letter,  he  who  composed  it  in  the 
name  of  Honorius,  or  those  who  spoke  in  Constantinople 
what  was  according  to  their  own  mind  ?  "  To  which  Pyrrhus 
replied  :  "  He  who  composed  it."  Then  Maximus  :  "  He, 
then,  has  expressed  himself  on  the  subject,  in  the  letter  to 
the  Emperor  Constantine,  which  he  prepared  by  commission 
of  Pope  John  IV.  (the  reference  is  to  the  above  letter,  the 
contents  of  which  are  repeated  here  substantially,  although 
not  verbally),  as  follows  :  We  have  (in  that  letter)  maintained 
one  will  in  Christ,  not  of  the  Godhead  and  manhood  together, 
for  we  spoke  of  the  one  will  of  the  manhood  alone.  Since 
Sergius  had  written  that  some  were  teaching  two  contradic 
tory  wills  in  Christ,  we  answered,  that  Christ  had  not  two 
mutually  contradictory  wills,  of  the  flesh  and  of  the  Spirit, 
like  us  men  after  the  Fall,  but  only  one  will,  which  (fivcri/cox; 
His  manhood.  If,  however,  any  one  would  say  : 


1  In  Anastasii  Collectanea,  in  Galland.  Biblioth.  PP.  t.  xiii.  p.  32  sq.,  and 
Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  682  sq.  The  Apologia  of  John  iv.  is  here  quoted  somewhat 
more  fully  than  in  the  first  edition. 


54  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

"  Why  have  you,  treating  of  the  manhood  of  Christ,  been  quite 
silent  respecting  His  Godhead  ? "  We  reply  :  "  In  the  first 
place,  Honorius  answered  that  about  which  Sergius  inquired ; 
and,  in  the  second  place,  as  in  everything  so  also  here,  we  have 
kept  to  the  custom  of  Holy  Scripture,  which  sometimes  speaks 
of  the  Godhead,  and  sometimes  of  the  manhood  alone."  * 

We  have  already  pointed  out,  in  passing,  that  there  is 
here  not  a  second  Apologia  pro  Honorio,  but  only  that  of 
Pope  John  iv.,  since  the  Abbot  Joannes  Symponus  had  also 
composed  the  letter  of  John  iv.  to  the  Emperor  (Apologia  pro 
Honorio),  as  he  was  also  the  composer  of  the  letters  of 
Honorius  to  Sergius.  What  Maximus  here  makes  the 
Abbot  Joannes  say,  is  nothing  else  than  what  this  abbot  had 
conceived  by  commission  of  Pope  John  iv.,  and  what  we 
therefore  have  adduced  as  Apologia  of  John  iv.  The  thoughts 
are  the  same,  only  that  Maximus  quoted  ex  memoria,  and  not 
with  perfect  verbal  accuracy  (this  remark  is  wanting  in  the 
first  edition). 

If  we  said  in  the  first  edition,  "  This  interpretation  of 
the  letter  of  Honorius  given  by  Pope  John  and  Abbot 
John  appears  to  us  suavior  quam  verior"  we  can  even  now 
not  regard  it  as  quite  admissible.  We  allow  that  Honorius 
spoke  of  the  una  voluntas  in  such  a  manner  that  he  excluded 
only  a  corrupt  human  will  in  Christ ;  and  it  is  also  correct  to 
say,  as  does  Pope  John  iv.,  that  the  whole  West  understood 
the  letter  of  Honorius  in  an  orthodox  sense.  But  that  is  not 
correct,  which  is  made  so  prominent  in  this  apology,  that,  in 
answering  Sergius,  he  had  only  of  the  manhood  of  Christ  to  speak, 
and  had  no  occasion  to  speak  of  anything  else  than  of  the 
human  will  of  Christ.  The  apology  says  :  "  It  should  be  known 
that  he  answered  that  which  Sergius  asked."  But  Sergius  did 
in  no  way  ask  whether  we  should  admit  in  Christ,  along  with 
the  natural  human  will,  also  that  of  the  natura  vitiata  or  the 
lex  membrorum.  He  asked  nothing  at  all  on  this  subject,  but 
quite  definitely  maintained  "  that  in  Christ  there  can  be 
only  one  will " ;  for  two  wills  Sergius  regarded  only  as 
contrarias.  Nor  is  it  correct  to  say  that  Honorius,  as  the 
apology  declares,  wrote :  "  Christ,  as  the  first  Adam,  had 

1  S.  Maximi  Dlsput.  cum  Pyrrho,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  739  sq. 


SECOND  LETTER  OF  HONORIUS.       HIS  ORTHODOXY.  55 

only  ONE  natural  will  of  His  MANHOOD."  The  words  "  of  His 
manhood "  are  an  addition  of  the  apologists.  The  corre 
sponding  words  in  Maximus,  "  one  will  which  ^UOYACW? 
^apafcrrjpi^ei  His  manhood,"  are  likewise  not  found  in  the 
letter  of  Honorius.  If  Honorius  had  really,  as  the  apologist 
says,  "  applied  the  healing  where  the  wound  was "  ;  if  he  had 
answered  correctly  what  Sergius  laid  before  him,  he  must 
have  said,  "  There  are  certainly  not  in  Christ  two  contrarice 
wluntates,  because  HE  did  not  assume  the  vitiata  natura 
humana ;  but  also,  not  merely  one  will,  but  along  with  the 
divine  stands  the  uncorrupted  human  will,  which  is  always  in 
conformity  with  the  divine.  That  would  have  been  the 
correct  reply  to  the  false  assertion  of  Sergius.1 

The  celebrated  Abbot  Maximus,  of  whom  we  shall  speak 
more  at  large  further  on,  has  also  defended  Honorius  in  his 
tome  to  the  Priest  Maximus,  and,  in  a  manner  similar  to 
our  own,  has  drawn  from  his  own  words  the  conclusion,  that 
he  had  himself  recognised  two  wills  in  Christ,  the  divine  and 
the  incorrupt  human.  Maximus,  however,  added :  "  The 
excellent  Abbot  Anastasius,  returning  from  Eome,  related 
that  he  had  spoken  with  and  inquired  of  the  most  dis 
tinguished  priests  of  that  great  Church,  in  detail,  on  the  e£ 
avT&v  rypafalaav  €7rio-To\r)v  to  Sergius,2  Why  and  in  what 
way  one  will  in  Christ  had  been  asserted  in  that  letter. 
Anastasius  found  them  troubled  and  apologetic  on  the  subject 
(aaxdXXovras  eV  rovrw  KCLI  diroXoyovfjievovs).  Besides,  he 
spoke  with  the  Abbot  Joannes  Symponus,  who  had  prepared 
that  letter  in  Latin  by  command  of  Honorius.  He  asserted : 
'  Quod  nullo  modo  mentioriem  in  ea  per  numerum  fecerit 
omnis  omnimodae  voluntatis ' ; "  i.e.  that  there  was  not  a 
numerical  unity  of  will  in  Christ  asserted  in  the  letter,  but 
this  had  been  done  by  those  who  had  translated  the  letter 
into  Greek.  It  was  not  the  human  will  generally,  but  only 

1  This  estimate  of  the  apology  agrees  substantially  with  that  in  the  first 
edition ;  but,  as  I  believe,  is  more  exact.      That  which  follows  up  to  p.  57, 
"  In  this  manner,"  etc.,  is  almost  entirely  new. 

2  Pennacchi  (p.  113  sq.)  understood  Q  avruv  =  VTT*  avr&v,  and  assumed  that 
the  Roman  priests  had  drawn  up  at  a  Synod  the  letter  of  Honorius  to  Sergius. 
But  ^  avruv  can  mean  no  more  than,    "the  letter  written  from  Rome  to 
Sergius." 


56  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

the  corrupt  will  in  Christ  that  was  denied.1  It  is  quite 
possible  that  the  Monoth  elites,  in  their  translations  and 
copies  of  the  letter  of  Honorius,  introduced  slight  altera 
tions,  so  as  to  give  a  complete  Monothelite  significance  to 
the  phrase,  unam  vohmtatem,  etc.  But  the  Greek  text  which 
we  have  still  before  us  cannot  be  regarded  as  falsified ;  for, 
when  this  Greek  translation  was  read  aloud  in  the  twelfth 
session  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  it  was  compared  by 
the  Eoman  deputy,  Bishop  John  of  Portus,  with  the  Latin 
original  which  lay  in  the  patriarchal  archives  at  Constanti 
nople,  and  was  found  correct.2  Moreover,  the  successors  of 
Honorius  in  the  Eoman  see  never  contested  the  genuineness 
of  these  letters,  although  they  knew  that  the  Monothelites 
appealed  to  them,  and  that  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod 
wanted  to  pronounce,  and  did  pronounce,  an  anathema  upon 
Honorius  on  account  of  these  letters.3 

Thus  there  remains  for  us  the  result :  The  two  letters  of 
Pope  Honorius,  as  we  now  possess  them,  are  unfalsified,  and 
show  that  Honorius,  of  the  two  Monothelite  terms  ey  OeX^fjLa 
and  fjiia  evepyeia,  himself  used  (in  his  first  letter)  the 
former ;  but  the  latter,  and  also  the  orthodox  expression  Bvo 
evepyeicu,  he  did  not  wish  to  be  used.  If,  in  his  second  letter, 
he  repeated  the  latter  (the  disapproval  of  the  expression  $vo 
evepyeiai,),  yet  here  he  himself  recognised  two  natural  energies 
in  Christ,  and  in  both  letters  he  so  expresesd  himself,  that  it 
must  be  admitted  that  he  did  not  deny  the  human  will 
generally,  but  only  the  corrupt  human  will  in  Christ ;  but 
although  orthodox  in  his  thought,  he  did  not  sufficiently  see 
through  the  Monothelite  tendency  of  Sergius,  and  expressed 
himself  in  such  a  way  as  to  be  misunderstood,  so  that  his 
letters,  especially  the  first,  seemed  to  confirm  Monothelitism, 
and  thereby  practically  helped  onward  the  heresy.4 

1  S.  Maximi  Tomus  ad  Maximum  Presbyt. ,  in  Migne,  Patres  Grseci,  t.  91, 
p.  243  ;  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  689  sq.,  there  is  only  a  Latin  translation. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  547  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1326  ;  cf.  below,  sec.  319  at  the  close. 

3  The  genuineness  of  the  letters  of  Honorius  was  fully  defended  by  Pennacchi 
(I.e.  pp.  75-112).    At  the  same  time,  he  found  them  quite  blameless.    (See  above, 
sec.  295.) 

4  In  establishing  this  result  also   there  is  some   deviation  from  the  first 
edition.     In  that  it  is  said  :  " Thus  there  remains  for  us  the  result:  The  two 


SECOND   LETTER   OF   HONORIUS.       HIS    ORTHODOXY.  57 

In  this  manner  is  settled  the  question  respecting  the 
orthodoxy  of  Pope  Honorius ; l  and  we  hold,  therefore,  the 
middle  path  between  those  who  place  him  on  the  same  grade 
with  Sergius  of  Constantinople  and  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  and 
number  him  with  the  Monothelites,2  and  those  who,  allowing 
no  spot  in  him,  have  fallen  into  the  misfortune  of  nimium 
probantes,  so  that  they  would  prefer  to  deny  the  genuineness 
of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  and  of  several 
other  documents,3  or  even  to  ascribe  to  the  sixth  Council  an 
error  in  facto  dogmatical  In  opposition  to  the  latter,  the 

letters  of  Honorius,  as  we  now  have  them,  are  unfalsified,  and  do  not  bear  the 
interpretatio  suavis  which  it  is  wished  to  give  them.  They  show  that,  of  the  two 
heterodox  terms  'ev  dtX-rjfj-a  and  ^La  tvtpyeia,  Honorius  actually  used  the  former, 
and  placed  the  latter  on  the  same  line  with  the  watchword  of  orthodoxy,  5tio 
tvtpyetai,  and  rejected  both.  They  show  also,  however,  that  the  fundamental 
conviction  of  Honorius,  the  foundation  of  his  argument,  and  at  the  same  time 
himself,  was  orthodox  in  heart,  and  his  error  consisted  only  in  an  incorrect 
representation  of  the  dogma,  and  in  a  defect  of  logical  consistency. 

1  Similar  is  the  judgment  of  an  anonymous  writer  in  the  Katholik  (1863,  S. 
689  f. ),  thus  :  ' '  The  fault  of  Honorius  consisted  in  this,  that  he  did  not  discover 
the  tricks  of  Sergius,  which  he  ought  to  have  suspected  ;  that  he  did  not  sharply 
define  and  sanction  the  true  meaning  of  the  expression,   "two  energies"  ;  that 
he  placed  this  expression  on  the  same  line  with  that  of  "one  energy"  ;  that 
he  treated  the  whole  question  in  a  superficial  manner,  as  a  mere  strife  of  words  ; 
and  finally,  that,  with  the  greatest  want  of  prudence,  he  spoke  of  one  will  in  a 
manner  which,  if  it  admitted   of  a  good  meaning,  yet  under  the  prevailing 
circumstances  might  easily  be  mistaken,  and  give  occasion  for  great  errors.     He 
played  with  the  fire  which  others  had  kindled  ;  and  thus  made  the  fire  stronger, 
and  shared  the  blame  of  the  inventors  and  adherents  of  the  heresy,  although  he 
did  not  himself  share  their  error."     Added  to  second  edition. 

2  So  most  of  the  Gallicans,  e.g.  Richer,  Hist.  Condi,  generalium,  lib.  i.  c.  x. 
p.  567  sqq.  ed.  Colon.  1683  ;  Dupin,  Nouvelle  Bibliotheque,  etc.,  t.  vi.  p.  69, 
ed.  Mons.  1692.     Bossuet,  Defensio  Dedarat.  cleri  Gallicani,  t.  ii.  p.  190  ;  and 
Protestants,  e.g.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  125  ;  Bower,  History  of  the  Popes, 
"Honorius."     Forbes,  Instructiones  Historico-theolog.  p.  240;  Dorner,  Lehre  v. 
d.  Person  Christi,  Bd.  ii.  pt.  i.  S.  218  [Eng.  trans.,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh]. 
Even  the  cardinal  of  Lucerne  formed  so  harsh  a  judgment  on  Honorius  in  his 
work,  Sur  la  declaration  de  Vassemllee  du  derge  de  France  en  1682,  Paris  1821, 
in  Palma,  Prselectimes  hist,  cedes.,  Romse  1839,  t.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  106  sqq. 

3  So  especially  Pighius  (Diatriba  de  Actis  vi.  et  vii.  Concil.}  and  Baronius 
(ad  ann.  633,  34  sq.,  and  681,  29  sqq.). 

4  So,  quite  recently,  Pennacchi  ;  earlier,  Cardinal  Tunecremata  (lib.  ii.  De 
Ecclesia,  c.  93),    Bellarmino   (lib.  iv.  De  Rom.  Pontif.  c.  2),  and  the  learned 
Maronite,  Joseph  Simon  Assemani  (Biblioth.  Juris  Orient,  t.  iv.  p.  113  sqq.). 
The  latter  thinks  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  certainly  regarded  Honorius 
as  a  heretic,  and  anathematised  him  as  such,  but  that  the  points  which  spoke 
in  his  defence,  particularly  the  apologies  already  mentioned  of  John  iv.  and  of 


58  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

appellants  (Jansenists)  came  forward  with  the  argument : 
If  you  maintain  that  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  fell  into 
an  error  facti,  we  may  maintain  the  same  also  in  regard  to 
Pope  Clement  xi.  and  his  Constitution  Unigenitus.  But 
there  is  a  great  difference  between  the  appellants  and  those 
apologists  of  Honorius.  The  latter  proposed  (a)  their  view 
out  of  reverence  of  the  holy  see,  and  (b)  from  this  pro 
ceeded  to  the  view  that  the  letters  of  Honorius,  or  even  the 
letter  of  Sergius,  which  Honorius  answered,  were  afterwards 
falsified,  and  in  false  copies  were  laid  before  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod,  so  that  this  formed  a  quite  correct 
judgment  in  rejecting  the  (certainly  pseudo-)  Honorius.1 
Or  (c)  they  contested,  like  Pennacchi,  the  (Ecumenical 
character  of  the  sentence  of  the  sixth  Council  against 
Honorius.  See  below,  sec.  324. 

The  middle  path,  which  we  hold  to  be  the  right  one,  and 
have  explained  above,  is,  however,  essentially  different  from 
that  which  Gamier  supposed  he  had  discovered,2  and  on 
which  so  many  distinguished  theologians  and  scholars  followed 
him.  According  to  this,  it  is  conceded  that  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  did  really  and  properly  anathematise  the 
letters  of  Honorius,  but  not  as  containing  anything  heretical, 
for  they  were  entirely  free  from  this,  but  only  ob  imprudentem 
silentii  ceconomiam,  because  Honorius,  by  requiring  this  silence, 
had  given  powerful  assistance  to  the  heresy.3  In  opposition 
to  this  we  maintain,  (a)  Honorius  gave  assistance  to  the 
heresy,  not  merely  by  requiring  silence,  but  much  more  by 
the  unhappy  expression,  unde  unam  voluntatem  fatemur 
Domini  nostri  Jesu  Cliristi,  as  well  as  by  his  disapproval  of 

Abbot  John,  had  not  been  known  to  the  Synod.  That  the  better  instructed 
Pope  Leo  n.,  on  the  contrary,  had  not  completely  approved  of  the  anathema  of 
the  Synod  on  Honorius,  but  had  anathematised  him,  not  on  the  ground  of  heresy, 
but  of  negligence.  See  below,  sec.  324.  The  judgments  of  the  different 
savants  on  Honorius,  his  guilt  or  innocence,  are  collected  pretty  completely  by 
Schneemann  in  his  Studien  iiber  die  Honoriusfrage,  Herder,  Freiburg  1864, 
S.  25  ff. 

1  Of.  Chmel,  O.S.B.  Prof.  Prag.,   Vindicise  Concilii  (Ecumenici  vi.,    Pragse 
1777,  p.  441  sqq.,  456  sqq. 

2  Gamier,  De  Honorii  et  Concilii  vi.  Causa  in  the  Appendix  of  the  Liber 
diurnus  Romanorum  pontificum. 

3  From  here  to  the  end  of  the  paragraph  added  to  the  second  edition. 


SECOND  LETTER  OF   HONORIUS.       HIS   ORTHODOXY.  59 

the  orthodox  term  &vo  eidpyeuu.  The  Monothelites  rested 
upon  this,  and  not  upon  the  silence  enjoined.  (&)  At  the 
same  time,  the  letters  of  Honorius,  especially  the  first,  are 
not  so  entirely  without  fault  as  this  hypothesis  assumes ; 
they  contain,  at  least  in  their  literal  meaning,  erroneous 
teaching,  (c)  Finally,  we  shall  see  (sec.  324)  that  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  pronounced  anathema  on  Honorius  by  no 
means  merely  on  account  of  an  imprudens  silentii  oeconomia. 

Gfrorer  (KirchengeschicfUe,  Bd.  iii.  pt.  i.  S.  54)  supposed  that 
the  letters  of  Honorius  were  the  stipulated  return  for  the 
great  complacency  shown  to  him  not  long  before  by  the 
Emperor  Heraclius.  None  of  the  previous  Popes,  not  even 
Gregory  the  Great,  had  succeeded,  in  spite  of  repeated  efforts, 
in  uniting  again  with  Eome  the  metropolitan  see  of  Aquileia- 
Grado,  with  its  ecclesiastical  province,  which  had  been  in  a 
state  of  schism  since  the  controversy  of  the  Three  Chapters. 
But  Honorius,  more  fortunate  than  his  predecessors,  had 
carried  through  the  great  work,  had  expelled  Fortunatus,  the 
schismatical  archbishop  of  Grado,  and  had  placed  Primo- 
genius,  "  a  partisan  of  Eome,"  on  the  metropolitan  chair  of 
Istria — by  means  of  armed  assistance  from  the  Greek  exarch. 
"  Can  it  be  doubted  for  a  moment,"  exclaims  Gfrorer,  "  that 
the  subjection  of  the  Istrian  Church  under  the  see  of  Peter 
was  the  price  for  which  Honorius  entered  the  Monothelite 
league  ?  One  hand  washes  the  other." 

I  cannot  bestow  upon  this  hypothesis  the  commendation 
which  it  has  received  from  Kurtz  in  his  Manual  of  Church 
History  (1853,  Bd.  i.  S.  181).  Apart  from  the  fact  that 
Primogenius  is  very  inaptly  named  a  partisan  of  Rome  (he 
was  a  subdeacon  of  the  Roman  Church),  the  substructure  of 
Gfrorer' s  edifice  is  untenable ;  for  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that 
none  of  the  Popes  before  Honorius  had  succeeded  in  uniting 
the  see  of  Grado.  Such  a  union,  in  fact,  took  place  in  the 
year  607.  The  see  of  Aquileia-Grado  received  in  Candidian 
an  orthodox  metropolitan ;  and  all  the  bishops  of  this 
ecclesiastical  province,  whose  sees  lay  in  the  imperial  terri 
tory,  forsook  the  schism.1  What,  then,  happened  under  Pope 

1  When  the  Longobardi  conquered  Upper  Italy,  the  metropolitan  chair  of 
Aquileia  was  removed  to  Grado,  as  this  city,  strong  by  reason  of  its  marshes 


60  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Honorius  ?  The  schismatic  Fortunatus  had,  with  the  help  of 
the  Longobardi,  possessed  himself  of  the  see  of  Grado,  and  en 
deavoured  to  renew  the  schism.  His  suffragans  were  indignant 
at  this,  and  the  imperial  governor  (exarch)  at  Eavenna  also 
threatened  him,  so  that  Fortunatus  found  it  well  to  flee  into 
the  country  of  the  Longobardi,  first  stealing  the  treasure  of 
the  Church  (629  or  630).  Pope  Honorius  now  placed  the 
Roman  subdeacon  Primogenius  in  the  see  of  G-rado,  and 
demanded  of  the  Longobardi,  vainly,  indeed,  the  surrender  of 
those  valuables  of  the  Church  of  Grado.  We  still  possess1  his 
letter  on  this  subject  to  the  bishops  of  Istria,  at  the  close  of 
which  the  passage  occurs  which  Baronius  misunderstood  :  "  In 
similar  cases  the  fathers  of  the  Cliristianissima  respublica 
would  do  the  like,"  i.e.  give  up  stolen  goods  that  had  been 
brought  into  their  country.  Baronius  thought  that  by 
Christianissima  respublica  Venice  was  to  be  understood ;  but 
Muratori,  long  ago,  correctly  remarked  (History  of  Italy,  vol. 
iv.)  that  quite  commonly  this  expression  is  used  to  designate 
the  Roman  Empire.  From  what  has  been  said,  however,  it 
is  clear  that  the  union  of  the  see  of  Grado  and  its  suffragans 
was  earlier  than  the  time  of  Pope  Honorius,  and  that  under 
him  only  a  temporary  disturbance  of  the  union  was  ended. 
This  disturbance,  in  itself  untenable  through  the  opposition  of 
the  suffragans,  did  not  need  to  be  bribed  with  the  blood- 
money  of  the  consent  to  heresy. 

We  have  already  seen,  to  some  extent,  from  the  apology 
of  John  IV.,  what  judgment  was  formed  of  Honorius  at  Rome. 
In  agreement  with  this,  Martin  i.  and  his  Lateran  Synod, 
A.D.  649,  and  so  Pope  Agatho  and  his  Synod  in  680,  did  not 
reckon  Honorius  among  the  Monothelites,  but  rather  held  his 
memory  in  honour,  and  expressed  themselves  as  though  all 
previous  Popes  had  been  opponents  of  the  heresy.  We  shall 

could  not  be  seized  by  the  Longobardi  ;  and  the  metropolitans  now  took  the 
title  of  "Aquileia  at  Grado."  Of  the  cities  belonging  to  this  ecclesiastical 
province,  however,  some  remained  in  the  power  of  the  Emperor  ;  others  had 
been  seized  by  the  Longobardi.  The  bishops  in  the  Longobardian  territory 
would  not  enter  the  union  in  the  year  607 ;  and  then  appointed  for 
themselves  a  special  ecclesiastical  head  with  the  title  of  "Patriarch  of 
Aquileia." 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  577  ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  630,  14. 


ECTHESIS   OF   THE   EMPEROR    HERACLIUS,   A.D.   638.  61 

see  more  fully  (sec.   324)  how  they  spoke  of  Honorius   in 
Eome  after  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council. 

On  the  question :  Whether  the  two  letters  of  Honorius 
were  put  forth  ex  cathedra,  as  it  is  called,  or  not,  the  views 
among  his  defenders  are  very  different.  Pennacchi  maintains 
that  they  were  put  forth  auctoritate  apostolica  (I.e.  p.  169 
sqq.),  whilst  Schneemann  (I.e.  S.  63)  holds  the  opposite 
opinion.  For  my  own  part,  I  confess  myself  here  on  the 
side  of  Pennacchi,  since  Honorius  intended  to  give  first  to 
the  Church  af  Constantinople,  and  implicite  to  the  whole 
Church,  an  instruction  on  doctrine  and  faith ;  and  in  his 
second  letter  he  even  uses  the  expression  :  Ceterum,  quantum 
ad  DOGMA  ECCLESIASTTCUM  pertinet,  .  .  .  non  itnam  vel  duas 
operationes  in  mediatore  Dei  et  hominum  definire  debemus.1 

SEC.  299.   The  Ecthesis  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  A.D.  638. 

The  answer  of  Constantinople  to  the  synodal  letter  of 
Sophronius  was  the  Ecthesis  (setting  forth  of  the  faith)  of  the 
Emperor  Heraclius.  The  successor  of  Sergius,  Pyrrhus, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  says  on  this  subject  in  his 
disputation  with  Maximus :  "  The  unseasonable  letter  of 
Sophronius  has  rendered  it  necessary  for  us  (in  Constanti 
nople),  against  our  will,  so  to  act,"  i  e.  to  put  forth  the 
Ecthesis.2  That  Sergius  was  its  composer  is  uncontested, 
and  is  by  the  Emperor  Heraclius  himself  declared.  In  order 
to  separate  the  discontent  of  the  Westerns,  on  account  of  the 
Ecthesis,  from  his  person,  he  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the 
year  641  to  Pope  John  IV. :  "The  Ecthesis  is  not  mine,  and 
I  have  not  recommended  its  promulgation,  but  the  Patriarch 
Sergius  drew  it  up  five  years  ago,  and  on  my  return  from  the 
East  petitioned  me  to  publish  it  with  my  subscription."3 

For  the  authorship  of  Sergius,  moreover,  there  is  the 
testimony  of  the  great  inner  relationship  between  the  Ecthesis 
and  his  letter  to  Pope  Honorius  (see  above,  p.  22). 

1  Added  to  the  second  edition. 
-  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  741. 

3  This  fragment  of  a  letter  is  found  in  the  Collatio  inter  Maximum  et  socium 
cjus  coram  principibi(S,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  9. 


62  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

Maximus  professes  to  know  that  Sergius  and  his  friends  had 
obtained  the  publication  of  the  Ecthesis  by  means  of  presents 
to  the  Emperor;1  and  the  biographer  of  S.  Maximus  appears 
to  indicate  that  the  consent  to  the  marriage  of  the  Emperor 
with  his  niece  Martina  was  the  price  at  which  the  patriarch 
bought  the  Ecthesis.2  But  this  uncanonical  marriage  was  con 
cluded  in  the  year  616.  When  Walch  adds  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix. 
S.  142),  it  was  designated  by  Sergius  as  incest,  it  is  certainly 
true  that  the  patriarch  disapproved  of  it ;  but  it  is  still  un 
deniable  that  he  showed  himself  weak,  and  crowned  Martina.3 
That  the  Ecthesis  was  drawn  up  in  the  course  of  the 
twelfth  year  of  indiction  was  declared  by  Pope  Martin  i.  at 
the  Lateran  Synod  of  the  year  649.4  That  twelfth  year  of 
indiction  began  with  September  1,  638  ;  and  as  Sergius  died 
in  the  December  of  the  same  year,  the  Ecthesis  must 
necessarily  be  placed  between  September  and  December  638, 
and  not  in  the  year  639.  Pagi  showed  this  (ad  ann.  639,n. 
2  and  8)  in  opposition  to  Baronius.  It  is  preserved  for  us  in 
the  third  secretarius  (session)  of  the  Lateran  Synod  already 
mentioned,5  bears  the  form  of  a  creed,  explains  first  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  then  passes  on  to  the 
Incarnation,  treats  this  in  the  sense  of  Chalcedon,  and  then 
proceeds  to  the  principal  subject,  namely,  (a)  the  prohibition 
of  the  expressions  pla  and  Bvo  evepyewu,  because  both  were  ex 
plained  in  a  heretical  sense,  and  (/3)  asserting  one  single  will 
(6e\v]^a)  in  Christ.  The  principal  passages  run  :  "  In  regard 
to  the  mystery  of  the  Person  of  Christ  is  the  evcoais  Kara  avv- 
Oevw  (see  vol.  iv.  sec.  263)  to  be  confessed  without  crv^vai^ 
and  Sialpeo-is.  It  preserves  the  property  of  each  of  the  two 
natures,  but  shows  one  hypostasis  and  one  person  of  God  the 
Logos  with  (united  with)  the  reasonably  quickened  flesh ; 
whereby  not  a  Quaternity  is  introduced  instead  of  a  Trinity, 
since  there  is  not  a  fourth  Person  added  to  the  Trinity, 
but  the  eternal  Logos  thereof  has  become  flesh.  And  not 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  691. 

2  In  Maximi  Opp.  t.  i.  p.  ix.  c.  12. 

3  Niceph.  Breviar.  de  rebus  post  Mauridum  gestis,  ed.  Bonn,  pp.   16,   17  ; 
Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  463. 

4  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  873  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  695. 

5  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  991  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  791. 


ECTHESIS   OF  THE  EMPEROR  HERACLIUS,  A.D.   638.  63 

another  was  HE  who  worked  miracles,  and  another  who 
endured  sufferings,  but  we  acknowledge  one  and  the  same 
Son,  who  is  at  the  same  time  God  and  man,  one  hypostasis, 
one  person,  suffering  in  the  flesh,  impassible  in  the  Godhead ; 
to  Him  and  the  same  belong  the  miracles  and  the  sufferings, 
which  HE  voluntarily  endured  in  the  flesh.  .  .  . 

"  All  divine  and  human  energy  we  ascribe  to  one  and  the 
same  Incarnate  Logos,  and  render  one  worship  to  Him,  who, 
for  our  sake,  was  voluntarily  and  truly  crucified  in  the  flesh, 
and  rose  from  the  dead,  etc. ;  and  we  do  not  at  all  allow  that 
any  one  should  maintain  or  teach  one  or  two  energies  of  the 
Incarnate  Lord,  but  demand  that  there  should  be  confessed, 
as  the  holy  and  (Ecumenical  Synods  have  handed  it  down, 
that  one  and  the  same  only-begotten  Son,  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  works  both  the  divine  and  the  human,  and  that  all 
Godlike  and  manlike  energy  proceeds  from  one  and  the  same 
Incarnate  God  the  Logos  without  mixture  and  without 
separation,  and  refers  back  to  one  and  the  same.  Because 
the  expression,  one  energy,  although  some  of  the  Fathers 
use  it,  yet  sounds  strange  to  the  ears  of  some,  and  disquiets 
them,  since  they  are  made  suspicious  lest  it  should  be  used  in 
order  to  set  aside  the  two  natures  which  are  hypostatically 
united  in  Christ ;  and  (since)  in  the  same  way  many  take 
offence  at  the  expression,  two  energies,  since  it  is  not  used 
by  any  of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  then  we  should  be  obliged,  as 
a  consequence,  to  teach  two  mutually  contradictory  wills,  as 
if  God  the  Logos,  aiming  at  our  salvation,  was  willing  to 
endure  suffering,  but  His  manhood  had  opposed  itself  to  this 
His  will,  which  is  impious  and  foreign  to  the  Christian 
dogma — when  even  the  wicked  Nestorius,  although  he,  divid 
ing  the  Incarnation,  introduced  two  Sons,  did  not  venture  to 
maintain  two  wills  of  the  same,  but,  on  the  contrary,  taught 
the  like  willing  of  the  two  persons  assumed  by  him  ;  how  can, 
then,  the  orthodox,  who  worship  only  one  Son  and  Lord,  admit 
in  Him  two,  and  those  mutually  opposed  wills  ? — therefore  must 
we,  following  the  Fathers  in  everything  and  so  also  in  this,  con 
fess  one  will  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  true  God,  so  that  at 
no  time  His  rationally  quickened  flesh  was  separated,  and,  of 
its  own  impulse  (opprj),  in  opposition  to  the  suggestion  of  God 


64  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

the  Logos,  hypostatically  united  with  it,  fulfilled  its  natural 
motion  (that  of  the  flesh),  but  only  at  the  time  and  in  the 
manner  and  in  the  measure  in  which  the  Word  willed. 
These  dogmas  of  piety  have  been  handed  down  to  us  by  those 
who  from  the  beginning  have  themselves  seen  the  Word,  and 
have  been  with  Him,  serving  Him  ;  and  also  by  their  disciples 
and  successors  and  all  later  God-enlightened  teachers  of  the 
Church,  or,  which  is  the  same,  the  five  holy  and  (Ecumenical 
Synods,  etc.  And  we  ordain  that  all  Christians  shall  thus 
think  and  teach,  without  adding  or  taking  away  anything." 

We  see  that  the  Ecthesis,  in  its  contents,  agrees  with  the 
letter  of  Sergius  to  Honorius  ;  and  the  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople  did  not,  therefore,  first  come  to  these  views  in  opposi 
tion  to  the  Synodica  of  Sophronius,  but  had  done  so  a 
considerable  time  before  its  appearance.  On  the  contrary, 
the  agreement  of  the  Ecthesis  with  the  two  letters  of 
Honorius  is  only  apparent.  The  latter  certainly  also  dis 
approves  of  the  expressions  pla  and  8uo  evepyeiai ; l  but  he 
stumbles  only  at  the  word,  not  at  the  thing ;  for  in  his 
second  letter  he  says  himself :  "  The  divine  nature  works  in 
Christ  the  divine,  and  the  human  accomplishes  the  human." 
He  thus  teaches,  in  fact,  two  energies,  although  he  objects  to 
the  employment  of  the  term.  And  so  his  phrase,  Unam 
voluntatem  fatemur  is,  in  its  meaning,  essentially  different 
from  the  like-sounding  thesis  of  the  Ecthesis  (see  above,  p.  35). 

SEC.   300.   Two  Synods  at  Constantinople,  A.D.   638 
and   639.     Adoption  of  the  Ecthesis. 

It  was  naturally  the  wish  of  the  Emperor  that  the 
Ecthesis  should  be  universally  received,  and  there  was  a 
prospect  of  this,  especially  as  Sophronius,  the  chief  represent 
ative  of  Dyothelitism,  was  prevented  from  taking  part  in  the 
controversy  on  account  of  the  siege  acd  capture  of  Jerusalem 
by  the  Arabs,  A.D.  637,  and  died  before  the  appearance  of  the 
Ecthesis,  and  his  chair  had  come  into  the  hands  of  the 
Monothelite  Bishop  Sergius  of  Joppa.2  It  was  also  hoped  that 

1  From  here  to  the  end  of  the  paragraph  altered  in  the  second  edition. 

2  Of.  Pagi,  adann.  636,  n.  2  and  3  ;  Baron,  ad  aim.  636,  n.  4,  and  643,  n.  12. 


TWO   SYNODS  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.   638  AND  639.        65 

the  other  patriarchs  would  assent.  Macedonius  of  Antioch, 
whom  we  have  not  hitherto  met,  was  uncanonically  appointed 
and  consecrated  by  Sergius.  His  episcopal  city,  threatened, 
and  in  the  year  638  actually  taken  by  the  Arabs,  he  had  not 
entered,  but  had  remained  in  Constantinople,  and  had  here 
taken  his  stand  on  the  Monothelite  side.1  Sergius,  however, 
held,  in  the  last  months  of  A.D.  638,  a  Synod  at  Constantinople 
(perhaps  Mqpafoa),  which  approved  the  Ecthesis,  as  har 
monising  with  the  apostolic  doctrine,  and  ordered  its  universal 
acceptance,  threatening  that,  if  any  one  should,  in  future,  teach 
one  or  two  energies,  if  he  were  a  bishop  or  cleric,  he  should  be 
deposed ;  if  a  monk  or  a  layman,  he  should  be  excluded  from 
the  holy  communion,  until  he  amended.2  Soon  afterwards 
Sergius  died,  in  the  December  of  the  same  year.  His  suc 
cessor,  Pyrrhus,  who  ascended  the  throne  in  January  639, 
was  a  Monothelite,  and  held  also  a  Synod  at  Constantinople 
in  the  year  639,  which  not  only  confirmed  the  Ecthesis  anew, 
but  provided  that  even  the  absent  bishops  should  be  required 
to  accept  it.3 

In  Alexandria,  Cyrus  with  great  joy  read  the  Ecthesis 
which  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  had  sent  to  him 
accompanied  by  a  letter,  and  had  hymns  sung,  because  God 
had  sent  His  people  so  wise  an  Emperor,  as  he  relates  in  his 
still  extant  answer  to  Sergius.4 

1  Of.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  86  and  143  ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  649,  n.  64. 

2  Fragments  of  this  Synod  are  preserved  in  the  Secret,  iii.  of  the  Lateran 
Synod  of  the  year  649,   Mansi,   t.  x.   p.  999 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.   p.  798.     Of. 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  639,  8. 

3  Fragments  of  this  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1002  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  799.    Of.  Pagi, 
ad  ann.  639,  8. 

4  Preserved  in  Secret,   iii.  of  the  Lateran  Synod,   Mansi,   t.   x.  p.   1003  ; 
Hardouin,  t.  iii.  803.     We  learn  from  this  that   the  imperial  official  (magistcr 
militum)  Eustachius,   who  had  been  sent  with  the  Ecthesis  to  Italy  to  the 
Exarch  Isaac,  so  that  the  latter  should  obtain  the  subscription  of  Severinus, 
travelled  by  way  of  Alexandria,  and  communicated  to  Cyrus  a  transcript  of  that 
imperial  copy  for  Isaac.     "Walch  (I.e.  S.  144)  brought  up  the  question,  why  the 
Emperor  had  not  himself  sent   the   Ecthesis  to   Cyrus,    and   supposes  that 
Alexandria  had  been  seized  by  the  Saracens,  so  that  Cyrus  wras  no  longer  a 
subject  of  Heraclius.     On  the  other  hand,  the  hierarchical  union  of  Alexandria 
with  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  had  continued,  and  therefore  Sergius  had 
written  to  Cyrus. — This  hypothesis  is  unfounded.     It  is  true  that  the  Arabs 
had  invaded  Egypt  by  the  year  634,  but  Alexandria  was  first  seized  by  them  in 

v.— 5 


66  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

SEC.  301.   Death  of  Pope  Honorius.      The  Ecthesis  is 
rejected  at  Eome. 

When  the  copy  of  the  Ecthesis  sent  to  Italy  arrived 
there,  Pope  Honorius  had  already  died,  in  October  638.  We 
must  even  conclude,  from  the  letter  of  Cyrus  to  Sergius  just 
referred  to,  that  the  intelligence  of  the  death  of  Honorius 
and  the  election  of  Severinus  had  come  to  Constantinople 
before  the  sending  out  of  the  Ecthesis.  The  election  of 
Severinus  took  place  soon  after  the  death  of  Honorius,  and 
the  representative  of  the  imperial  exarch  Isaac  seized  the 
opportunity  of  taking  possession  of  the  papal  Lateran  palace, 
in  order  to  plunder  it.  The  newly  elected  Pope  and  others 
in  vain  offered  opposition ;  Isaac  now  himself  came  to  Eome, 
had  all  the  gold  and  valuables  removed  from  the  palace,  and 
shared  them  with  the  Emperor.1  In  order  to  obtain  the 
imperial  confirmation  of  the  election  which  had  been  made, 
the  Eoman  clergy  sent  several  representatives  to  Constan 
tinople.  They  were  detained  there  for  a  considerable  time, 
and  at  last  received  the  declaration  that  the  confirmation  of 
the  new  Pope  was  not  to  be  obtained,  unless  they  promised 
to  persuade  him  to  the  acceptance  of  the  dogmatic  document 
(the  Ecthesis),  which  was  handed  to  them.  In  order  to  draw 
themselves  out  of  the  snare,  they  pretended  to  agree,  and 
promised  to  inform  the  Pope  of  this  demand,  and  to  bring 
him  that  document.  The  imperial  confirmation  of  the  elec 
tion  was  now  drawn  up,  and  an  order  given  for  the  conse 
cration  of  Severinus.2  It  took  place  May  28,  640  ;  but  the 
Pope  died  two.  months  and  four  days  afterwards,  after  he  had 
rejected  Monothelitism,  and  had,  as  is  supposed,  held  a 

the  year  641  (Pagi,  ad  ann.  639,  n.  11,  and  641,  n.  13),  and  a  glance  at  the 
end  of  the  letter  from  Cyrus  shows  that  Alexandria  Avas  then  still  in  possession 
of  the  Emperor,  and  not  long  before  had  been  delivered  out  of  danger.  Besides, 
Walch  might  have  known  from  Nicephorus]  (Breviar.  I.e.,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  30), 
that,  soon  afterwards,  Cyrus  was  summoned  by  the  Emperor  Heraclius  to 
Constantinople,  and  deposed  (thus  treated  as  a  subject),  because  he  was 
suspected  of  an  understanding  with  the  Saracens.  The  succeeding  Emperor 
reinstated  him. 

1  Baron,  ad  ann.  638,  n.  6  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  638,  n.  5. 

2  Epist.    Maximi    ad    Thalassium,    in   Anastasii   Collectanea    in    Galland. 
Biblioth.  PP.  t.  xiii.  p.  42  ;  and  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  677. 


DEATH   OF   POPE   HONOEIUS.  67 

Eoman  Synod  for  this  purpose,  A.D.  640.1  What  is  certain  is, 
that  his  successor,  John  iv.,  who  was  consecrated  December 
24,  640,  soon  after  his  elevation,  and  even  before  the  death  of 
the  Emperor  Heraclius  (f February  11,  641),  at  a  Eoman 
Synod,  pronounced  anathema  on  Monothelitism.  The  Acts  of 
this  Synod  have  not  come  down  to  us,  but  Theophanes  and 
the  Synodicon  speak  of  it.2  The  latter  professes  to  know  that 
their  anathema  was  pronounced  upon  Sergius,  Cyrus,  and 
Pyrrhus,  at  Eome.  As,  however,  Pope  John  iv.,  in  a  some 
what  more  recent  letter  to  the  Emperor,  refers  to  the 
departed  Sergius  with  the  words  venerandce  memorial  episcopus, 
and  in  the  same  way  the  succeeding  Pope,  Theodore,  calls 
Pyrrhus  sanctissimus,  we  must  assume  that  the  Synod  pro 
nounced  anathema  on  the  heresy,  and  not  on  certain  persons. 
Pope  John  IV.  is  said  (by  the  Synodicon)  to  have  ac 
quainted  the  two  sons  of  the  Emperor,  David  and  Heraclius, 
with  the  decision  of  this  Eoman  Synod,  and  sent  them  a 
statement  (TITTTO?)  of  the  orthodox  doctrine.  It  seems  to  me 
that  this  must  mean  the  letter  to  be  next  described,  which 
the  Pope,  after  the  death  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  addressed 
to  his  sons.  The  Synodicon  also  says  that  "  he  sent  this 
later"  On  the  other  hand,  he  gave  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus  of 
Constantinople  immediate  notice  of  his  sentence  against  the 
Ecthesis,  and  thereby  occasioned  the  Emperor  Heraclius  to  shift 
the  fault  of  its  composition  from  himself  on  to  the  departed 
Sergius,  in  that  letter  to  which  we  referred  above  (p.  61).  Soon 
afterwards  the  Emperor  Heraclius  died  of  dropsy,  February  1 1 , 
641  (Pagi,  ad  ann.  641,  2),  and  there  succeeded  him,  in  accord 
ance  with  his  arrangement,  his  two  eldest  sons,  Heraclius 
Constantinus  (from  his  first  marriage),  and  Heraclius  the 

1  That  Pope  Severinus  rejected  the  Ecthesis  is   declared  by  the  Professio 
which  several  of  his  successors  had  to  make  at  their  consecration,  as  follows  : 
"  Profitemur  etiam  cuncta  decreta  pontificum  Apostolicse  sedis,   i.e.    sanctae 
recordationis  Severini,  Joannis,  Theodori,  atque  Martini  custodire,  qui  adversus 
novas  qusestiones  in  urbe  regia  exortas  .  .  .  cuncta  zizaniorum  scandala  ampu- 
tasse  noscuntur,  profitentes  juxta  duarum  naturarum  motum  ita  et  duas  naturales 
operationes,  et  qusecunque  damnaverunt,  sub  aiiathemate  danmanms."     From 
this  Pagi  (ann.  639,  3-5)  would  conclude  that  Pope   Severinus  rejected  Mono 
thelitism  at  a  Synod. 

2  Theophanes,  Chronogr aphid,  ed.  Bonn,  t;  i.  p.  508  ;  Libellus  Synodicus  in 
Mansi,  t.  x.  607;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1538. 


68  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

younger,  or  Heracleonas  (from  his  second  marriage).  Both 
were  required  to  do  honour  to  Martina,  the  mother  of  the 
latter,  as  mother  of  both.1 

When  Pope  John  iv.  received  intelligence  of  this  change 
in  the  throne,  he  sent  a  letter  of  some  length,  which  is  still 
extant,  to  the  two  young  Emperors,  in  order  to  explain  to 
them  the  true  doctrine  on  the  energies  and  wills  in  Christ, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  vindicate  the  orthodoxy  of  his 
predecessor,  Honorius.  Pyrrhus  of  Constantinople,  he  says  in 
this  letter,  circulated,  as  he  heard,  in  the  whole  of  the  East, 
a  letter  in  which  new  doctrine  was  taught  and  maintained. 
Pope  Honorius  had  also  been  said  to  be  of  the  same  view. 
After  John  iv.  had  opposed  this,  and  had  sought  to  vindicate 
Honorius  in  the  manner  explained  above  (p.  52),  he  proceeds: 
"  The  doctrine  of  one  will  is  heretical.  Ask  only  the  de 
fenders  of  this  doctrine,  which  this  one  will  is,  whether  the 
human  or  the  divine  ? "  If  they  say  the  divine,  they  are 
contradicted  by  the  true  manhood  of  Christ,  and  they  fall  into 
Manichaeism.  If,  however,  they  maintain  that  the  one  will  of 
Christ  is  human,  they  will  be  condemned  with  Photinus  and 
the  Ebionites  as  deniers  of  the  Godhead  of  Christ ;  if,  again, 
they  adopt  a  mingled  will,  they  at  the  same  time  mingle  the 
natures,  and  with  the  expression  una  operatic  they,  like 
Eutyches  and  the  Severians,  say,  unam  naturam  Christi  operari. 
I  have  learned,  he  says  in  conclusion,  that  the  bishops 
have  been  required  to  subscribe  a  document  with  new  doc 
trines  (certainly  the  Ecthesis),  to  the  prejudice  of  the  Epistola 
of  Leo  and  the  Synod  of  Chalcedon ;  but  the  Emperors  will 
certainly  have  this  foisted-in  document  torn  away,  and  restrain 
the  innovators,  for  the  report  of  this  has  troubled  the  West 
and  the  faithful  of  the  chief  city.2 

What  impression  this  letter  made  we  know  not,  but 
Zonaras  rightly  maintains3  that  the  Emperor  Heraclius  Con- 
stantinus  was  orthodox,  and  had  not  inherited  his  father's 

1  Nicephor.  Brcviar.  I.e.  p.  31. 

2  In  Anastasii  Collcctan.,   in  Galland.  t.  xiii.  p.  32  sqq.,  and  Mansi,  t.  x. 
p.  682  sqq. 

:i  Zonarse  Annettes,  lib.  xv.  c.  18,  p.   68,  ed.  Venet.   1729  ;  Pagi,  ad  aim. 
641,  3. 


THE    SYNODS   OF   ORLEANS   AND   CYPRUS.       POPE  THEODORE.     69 

error,  and  this  must  have  had  important  consequences,  if  he 
had  not  died  seven  months  afterwards.  It  was  believed  that 
his  stepmother  Martina  had  him  poisoned,  in  order  to  obtain 
the  empire  exclusively  for  her  own  son,  Heracleonas.  The 
Patriarch  Pyrrhus  is  also  said  to  have  been  implicated  in  this 
crime.1  But  Heracleonas  was  himself,  after  six  months,  over 
thrown  by  a  revolution,  his  nose  and  his  mother  Martina's 
tongue  being  cut  off,  and  both  exiled.  The  Patriarch  Pyrrhus 
fled  to  Africa,  and  the  throne  was  taken  by  Constans  IL,  named 
also  Constantinus,  the  son  of  Heraclius  Constantinus,  a  grand 
son  of  the  elder  Heraclius,  who  soon  gave  a  friendly  answer 
to  the  letter  of  the  Pope  to  his  father,  mentioned  above,  with 
the  assurance  that  he  was  orthodox,  and  that  he  had  ordered 
the  condemned  document  to  be  removed.2 

SEC.  302.    The  Synods  of  Orleans  and  Cyprus.     Pope  Theodore. 

Pope  John  iv.  had  rightly  asserted  that  the  West  rejected 
the  Monothelite  view.  Outside  Italy  this  was  now  shown 
already  in  France  and  Africa,  whilst  other  provinces  of  the 
West,  e.g.  Spain,  took  notice  later  of  the  new  heresy.  In 
France  it  was  rejected  by  a  Synod  at  Orleans  even  before 
the  year  640.  A  foreigner,  pulsus  a  partibus  transmarinis? 
had  come  to  the  city  of  Autun,  and  had  endeavoured  to  dis 
seminate  the  Monothelite  doctrine.  When  this  came  to  the 
ears  of  S.  Eligius,  then  master  of  the  mint  at  the  Frankish 
Court  at  Paris,  he  discussed  the  subject  with  his  friend 
S.  Audoenus  and  other  orthodox  men,  and  procured  the 
summoning  of  a  Synod  at  Orleans  by  King  Chlodwig  n. 
Like  a  serpent,  the  heretic,  for  a  considerable  time,  was  able 
to  escape  from  the  arguments  of  the  orthodox,  until,  to  the 
general  joy,  Bishop  Salvius  overcame  him  and  convicted  him. 

1  Cf.,  on  the  other  side,  Walch,  Bd.  ix.  S.  187  f.  and  193. 

2  For  this  we  have  not  merely  the  authority  of   the  less  trustworthy 
Eutychius  (archbishop  of   Alexandria  in  the  10th  century)  in  his  Annales 
Ecclcsiie  Alexandrine,  but  it  is  mentioned  also  by  Pope  Theodore  in  his  letter, 
hereafter  to  be  noticed,  to  the  Patriarch  Paul  of  Constantinople.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad 
aim.  641,  4. 

3  The  very  inaccurate  Acta  Audceni  in  Surius,  ad  24  Augusti,  profess  to 
know  that  this  foreigner  had  been  banished  from  Asia. 


70  HISTORY   OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

Upon  this  the  sentence  of  the  bishops  against  him  was  pub 
lished  in  all  the  cities,  and  he  was  banished  from  Gaul. 
Thus  relates  S.  Audoenus  (Ouen),  in  the  biography  of  his 
friend  Eligius  (in  Surius,  ad  December  1) ;  and  as,  according 
to  his"  account,  all  this  happened  before  Eligius  became 
bishop  of  Noyon,  and  Audoenus  archbishop  of  Eouen  (both 
were  consecrated  May  21,  640),  the  Synod,  with  respect  to 
the  date  of  which  so  many  mistakes  have  been  made,  must 
be  placed  before  the  year  640,  probably  in  638  or  639.1 

John  IV.  died  in  Borne,  October  11,  642,  and  his  suc 
cessor,  Theodore  i.,  like  him,  opposed  decidedly  the  heresy, 
without  allowing  himself  to  be  imposed  upon  by  Greek 
cunning.  The  new  Patriarch,  Paul  of  Constantinople,  raised 
to  the  throne  after  the  banishment  of  Pyrrhus,  had  recourse 
to  Eome  in  order  to  obtain  recognition  of  his  election.  His 
letter  is  lost,  but  we  still  possess  the  answer  of  Pope 
Theodore,  and  see  from  this  that  Paul  wished  the  Eomans 
to  believe  that  he  was  different  and  better  and  more 
orthodox  than  the  banished  Pyrrhus,  whilst  practically  the 
Ecthesis  remained  in  force  in  the  East,  and  the  promise 
given  by  the  Emperor,  to  have  it  everywhere  suppressed,  had 
not  been  fulfilled.  The  Pope  writes  :  "  We  inform  you  that 
we  have  received  the  synodal  letter  of  your  fraternity.  It 
appears  from  this  that  you  have  entered  upon  the  episcopal 
office  with  a  mingled  feeling  of  fear  and  hope,  and  rightly, 
for  that  is  a  great  burden.  .  .  .  That  which  Pyrrhus  under 
took  against  the  true  faith  is  deprived  of  power,  as  well  by 
the  declaration  of  the  apostolic  see  under  our  predecessor 
as  by  command  of  the  Emperor  (in  having  the  Ecthesis  sup 
pressed).  Why,  then,  has  not  your  fraternity  removed  that 
document  which  was  posted  up  at  public  places,  since  it  is 
now  quashed  ?  If  you  say  yourself  that  the  undertaking  of 
Pyrrhus  is  to  be  rejected,  why,  then,  have  you  not  removed 
this  paper  from  the  wall  ?  No  one  ever  honours  that  which 
he  abhors.  But  if  you,  which  God  forbid,  receive  this 
document,  why  have  you  been  silent  on  this  subject  in 

1  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  aim.  640,  n.  13  and  14  ;  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  759  sq. ;  Rivet,  in  the 
Histoire  litUraire  de  la  France,  t.  ix.  p.  7.  On  S.  Audoen,  cf.  Engling,  Der 
hi.  Audoenus,  Luxemburg  1867. 


THE   SYNODS   OF   ORLEANS  AND   CYPRUS.       POPE   THEODORE.      71 

your  synodal  letter  ?  .  .  .  Moreover,  we  wondered  that  the 
bishops  who  consecrated  your  fraternity  called  Pyrrhus 
sanctissimus,  and  remarked  that  he  had  resigned  the  Church 
of  Constantinople  because  the  people  hated  him  and  rose  up 
against  him.  We  thought,  therefore,  that  we  should  postpone 
the  granting  of  your  request  (the  confirmation)  until  Pyrrhus 
has  been  formally  deposed.  For  hatred  and  a  riot  of  the 
populace  cannot  deprive  one  of  his  bishopric.  He  ought  to 
have  been  punished  canonically,  if  your  consecration  was 
to  be  faultless  and  valid.  ,  .  .  You  must,  therefore,  hold  an 
assembly  of  bishops,  in  order  to  examine  his  affair,  and  our 
archdeacon  Serious,  as  well  as  our  deputy  and  deacon  Martin, 
will  be  our  representatives  there.  Pyrrhus  need  not  himself 
be  personally  present,  as  his  fault  and  his  heretical  writings 
are  universally  known ;  and  for  these  he  may  certainly  be 
condemned.  For  he  heaped  praise  upon  Heraclius,  who  ana 
thematised  the  orthodox  doctrine,  subscribed  his  sophistical 
edict  (the  Ecthesis),  seduced  other  bishops  to  the  same,  and 
allowed  that  document  to  be  posted  up  to  the  disparagement 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  ...  In  case,  however,  your 
fraternity  should  apprehend  that  the  adherents  of  Pyrrhus 
might  hinder  such  a  judgment  in  Constantinople,  we  have 
petitioned  the  Emperor  by  letter  to  send  Pyrrhus  to  Rome, 
that  he  may  be  judged  here  by  a  Synod.  A  number  of  con 
tentions  may  spring  up  on  account  of  your  elevation,  unless 
they  are  cut  at  the  roots  by  the  canonical  sickle.  .  .  .  That 
document,  however  (the  Ecthesis),  we  declare,  with  all  our 
powers,  as  invalid  and  anathematised,  and  we  abide  by  the 
old  doctrine.  .  .  .  Your  fraternity,  in  agreement  with  us, 
will  teach  and  proclaim  the  same  by  word  and  deed." 1 

A  second  letter  which  Pope  Theodore  sent  at  the  same 
time  to  Constantinople  bears,  in  Anastasius,  the  superscrip 
tion  Exemplar  propositions,  and  it  is  nowhere  said  or  indicated 
for  whom  it  was  destined.  But  from  the  expression  Prater- 
nitatis  vestrce,  which  is  in  the  context,  we  must  conclude  that 
it  had  been  addressed  to  bishops,  or  at  least  to  clergy, — perhaps 
to  the  clergy  of  Constantinople,  or  to  the  bishops  present 

1  Extant  only  in  Latin  in  Anastasii  Collectanea,  in  Galland.  t.  xiii.  p.  39  ; 
Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  702.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  aim.  643,  n.  4. 


72  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

there.  Possibly  it  was  an  Encyclical  to  all  the  bishops  of  the 
East,  and  it  contains  the  demand,  that  what  Pyrrhus  had  done 
in  opposition  to  the  Chalcedonian  Council  should  be  rejected, 
even  as  the  Pope  abhorred  his  rash  innovation,  and  anathe 
matised  the  document  which  was  posted  up  in  public  places.1 

Finally,  the  Pope  wrote  also  to  the  bishops  who  had  con 
secrated  Paul.  He  rejoices  that  he  has  come  in  the  place 
of  Pyrrhus,  but  he  cannot  conceal  that  the  latter  ought  to 
have  been  deposed  in  a  canonical  manner,  so  that  objections 
should  not  afterwards  arise,  and  divisions  be  occasioned. 
And,  in  fact,  good  grounds  would  be  alleged  for  his  canonical 
deposition,  inasmuch  as  he  commended  Heraclius,  who  yet 
anathematised  the  Catholic  faith,  confirmed  the  sophistical 
heterodox  document,  led  astray  other  bishops  to  subscribe  it, 
and  posted  it  up  in  public.  What  should  now  be  done  was 
contained  in  the  letter  to  Paul.2 

As  a  consequence  of  this  energetic  action,  the  metropolitan 
Sergius  of  Cyprus,  in  his  own  name  and  in  that  of  his 
brethren,  as  it  appears,  despatched  to  the  Pope  a  letter 
resolved  upon  at  a  Cyprian  Synod  (of  May  29,  643),  to  the 
effect  that  his,  the  Pope's,  orthodox  ordinance  left  nothing  to 
desire ;  that  the  Cyprian  bishops  acknowledge  with  Leo :  Agit 
utraque  forma  cum  alterius  communione,  quod  proprium  est,  and 
that  they,  supported  by  the  Pope,  were  ready  to  endure 
martyrdom  in  behalf  of  the  orthodox  faith.  On  the  other 
hand,  all  that  had  been  written  in  opposition  to  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  to  the  letter  of  Leo,  and  to  the  wisdom  of  the 
present  Pope,  should  be  annulled.  Hitherto  they  had  been 
silent,  as  their  former  metropolitan,  Arcadius  of  blessed 
memory,  who  was  quite  orthodox  (see  p.  1 2  f.),  was  in  hope 
that  those  who  had  erred  would  still  come  to  a  better  mind  ; 
but  now  they  must  no  longer  look  on  while  tares  were  being 
sown.  "  This,"  says  the  metropolitan  at  the  close,  "  is  the 
mind  of  the  holy  Synod  assembled  around  me  (r^?  icaO*  r^as 
iepas  (rwoSov.  ...  I  and  all  who  are  with  me  greet  you  in 
the  Lord."  3 

1  Galland.  I.e.  p.  41  ;  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  705.  2  Galland.  and  Mansi,  II. cc. 

3  Preserved  among  the  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of  A.D.  649.     Mansi,  t.  x. 
p.  914  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  730. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS   DISPUTATION    WITH  PYRRHUS.       73 

SEC.  303.  Abbot  Maximus  and  his  Disputation  with  Pyrrhus. 

In  the  meantime  the  Abbot  Maximus,  who  was  hence 
forth  to  be  the  most  valorous  champion,  and  even  a  martyr 
for  the  cause  of  Dyothelitism,  indignant  at  the  progress  of 
the  heresy  in  the  East,  had  left  Constantinople  in  order  to 
go  to  Rome.  Although  the  name  of  this  remarkable  man 
has  already  been  frequently  mentioned,  still  it  is  yet  in  place 
to  recall  the  earlier  events  of  his  life.  Born  about  the  year 
580  of  an  old  and  distinguished  family  of  Constantinople,  he 
had  by  his  remarkable  talents  and  bearing  attracted  the  atten 
tion  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  and  became  his  chief  secretary, 
a  man  of  influence  and  consideration.  But  in  the  year  630 
he  forsook  the  path  of  worldly  honours,  and  became  a  monk 
in  the  convent  at  Chrysopolis  (now  Scutari),  on  the  opposite 
shore  from  Constantinople,  as  it  is  thought,  both  from  love 
of  solitude  and  from  dissatisfaction  with  the  position  which 
his  master  took  in  the  Monothelite  controversy.  When 
Sophronius  first  came  forward  (A.D.  633)  against  the  new 
heresy  in  Alexandria,  Maximus  was  in  his  company,  as  he 
says  himself  in  his  letter  to  Peter.1  The  incompleteness  of 
the  Vita  Maximi,  written  by  one  of  his  admirers,2  leaves  it 
doubtful  whether  he  was  abbot  at  that  time.  It  does  not 
mention  this  first  journey  to  Africa,  and  speaks  only  of  the 
second,  which  drew  after  it  the  disputation  with  Pyrrhus, 
A.D.  645,  and  the  holding  of  several  African  Synods,  A.D.  646. 
On  the  authority  of  the  Chronicle  of  Nicephorus  (Pagi,  ad  ann. 
642,  1),  it  is  believed  that  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus  was  formerly 
abbot  of  Chrysopolis,  and  so  the  predecessor  of  Maximus,  so 
that  when  Pyrrhus  in  the  year  639  ascended  the  patriarchal 
throne,  Maximus  became  his  successor  as  abbot.3  But  apart 
from  the  fact  that  the  Vita  Maximi  (c.  5)  speaks  of  his 
predecesor  in  such  a  manner  that  we  can  see  he  has  died, 
and  refers  to  him  in  the  most  respectful  manner,  which  it 
would  not  have  done  in  reference  to  Pyrrhus, — apart  from 
this,  Pyrrhus  says  expressly,  at  the  beginning  of  his  dis- 

1  Anastasii  Collectanea,  in  Galland.  t.  xiii.  p.  38  ;  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  691. 

2  Prefixed  to  Combefis'  edition  of  the  works  of  S.  Maximus. 

3  Thus  Walch,  KetzerMst.  Bd.  ix.  S.  195. 


7-4  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

putation  with  Maximus,  that  "  previously  he  had  not  known 
him  by  sight."  Pyrrhus,  then,  could  not  have  been  the 
abbot  of  Maximus  nor  his  predecessor  in  the  rule  of  the 
convent. 

When  the  Monothelite  heresy  spread  more  and  more  in 
Constantinople,  Maximus  resolved  to  betake  himself  to  Borne, 
and  on  the  way  thither  came  for  the  second  time  to  Africa. 
During  a  protracted  residence  there  he  had  much  intercourse 
with  the  bishops  of  those  parts,  and  also  found  a  patron  in 
the  imperial  viceroy,  Gregory,1  and  gave  general  warnings 
against  the  Monothelite  heresy.  To  this  time  also  belongs 
.the  remarkable  disputation  between  Maximus  and  the  deposed 
and  banished  Patriarch  Pyrrhus  of  Constantinople,  which, 
according  to  the  superscription,  took  place  somewhere  in 
Africa,  in  July  645,  in  presence  of  the  imperial  viceroy  and 
many  bishops.  The  complete  Acts  have  come  down  to  us,2 
and  contain  a  very  complete  discussion  both  of  the  orthodox 
Dyothelite  doctrine  and  of  the  objections  from  the  other  side. 
Maximus  showed  in  this  much  dialectical  ability  and  great 
superiority  to  Pyrrhus,  whom  at  times  he  treated  with  scant 
courtesy. 

Pyrrhus  opened  the  discussion  with  the  words :  "  What 
have  I,  or  what  has  my  predecessor  (the  Patriarch  Sergius), 
done  to  you  that  you  everywhere  decry  us  as  heretics  ?  Who 
has  honoured  you  more  than  we,  although  we  did  not  know 
you  by  sight  ?  "  Maximus  replied  :  "  The  latter  is  correct ; 
but  since  you  have  violated  the  Christian  dogma,  I  was 
forced  to  place  your  favour  behind  the  truth.  ...  The 
doctrine  of  one  will  is  contrary  to  Christianity ;  for  what  is 
more  impious  than  to  maintain  that  the  same  will  by  which 
all  things  were  created,  after  the  Incarnation,  longed  for  food 
and  drink  ?  "  Pyrrhus  :  "  If  Christ  is  only  one  person,  this 
one  so  willed  ;  thus  there  is  only  one  will."  M.  "  That  is 
confusion.  In  truth,  the  one  Christ '  is  God  and  man  at  the 

1  It  is  believed  that  Gregory  was  identical  with  that  George  with  whom 
Maximus  corresponded,  and  whom  he  greatly  commended.     Cf.  Walch,  I.e.  S. 
190. 

2  Printed  in  S.  Maximi  Opera,  ed.  Combefis,  t.  ii.  p.  159  sqq.  ;  ed.  Migne, 
Paris    1860,  t.  i.  p.  287  sqq.     Also  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  709-760  (misplaced  by  a 
misprint),  and  in  the  Appendix  to  vol.  viii.  of  Baronius. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS    DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRRHUS.       75 

same  time.  If,  however,  He  is  both,  then  HE  willed  as  God 
and  as  man,  and,  particularly,  that  which  was  suitable  to  the 
particular  nature ;  no  nature  dispensed  with  its  will  and  its 
energy.  If  the  duality  of  the  natures  does  not  divide  the 
one  Christ,  no  more  is  this  done  by  the  duality  of  wills  and 
operations."  P.  "  But  two  wills  presuppose  two  willers."  M. 
"  That  you  have  certainly  maintained  in  your  writings ;  but 
it  is  absurd.  Assuming  that  it  were  so,  that  two  wills  pre 
suppose  two  willers,  then  it  must  be,  vice  versa,  that  two 
willers  should  have  two  wills.  If  you  apply  this  to  the 
Trinity,  you  must  either  say  with  Sabellius,  that  because  in 
God  there  is  only  one  will,  there,  is  therefore  only  one  Person 
(one  Wilier)  in  the  Godhead ;  or  you  must  say  with  Arius, 
because  there  are  three  willing  (persons),  there  must  there 
fore  be  in  God  three  wills,  and  so  three  natures, — for  the 
difference  of  wills,  according  to  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers, 
comes  from  the  difference  of  natures."  l  P.  "  But  it  is  not 
possible  that  there  should  be  in  one  person  two  wills  that 
do  not  contradict  each  other."  M.  "  By  this  you  will  allow  that 
there  may  be  two  wills  in  one  person,  only  it  is  necessary 
that  they  should  contradict  each  other.  But  whence  comes 
then  the  contradiction  ?  If  from  the  natural  will  (in  itself), 
then  it  would  come  from  God,  and  God  would(  be  the  Author 
of  the  conflict.  But  if  it  comes  from  sin,  then  this  contra 
diction  could  not  be  in  Christ,  because  He  was  free  from  all 
sin."  P.  "  The  willing  is  then  a  matter  of  nature."  M. 
"  Certainly  the  simple  willing."  P.  "  But  the  Fathers  say  the 
saints  had  one  will  with  God ;  are  they,  then,  of  the  same 
nature  as  God  ? "  M.  "  Here  is  a  lack  of  distinction,  and 
you  interchange  the  object  of  the  will  (the  thing  willed) 
with  the  will  in  itself.  The  Fathers,  by  that  expression,  had 
only  the  object  of  willing  in  view,  and  used  the  expression 
will,  not  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word."  P.  "  If  the  will  is 
a  matter  of  nature,  then  we  must  often  change  our  nature, 
for  our  will  changes  often,  and  we  must  be  of  a  different 
nature  from  other  men ;  for  they  often  will  differently  from 

1  That  the  difference  of  wills  rests  in  the  difference  of  the  natures  was  taught 
by  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril,  etc.  Cf.  the  collection  of  patristic  passages 
for  two  energies  in  his  Opp.  t.  ii.  p.  156  sqq. 


76  HISTOKY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

ourselves,"  M.  "  We  must  distinguish  the  will  (as  such) 
from  the  concrete  willing  of  a  definite  thing,  as  we  must  dis 
tinguish  sight  from  the  seeing  of  a  definite  thing,  e.g.,  whether 
right  or  left,  upwards  or  downwards,  etc.,  etc.,  they  are  modi 
of  the  use  of  the  will  or  of  sight,  and  by  these  modi  one  is 
distinguished  from  another."  P.  "  If  you  confess  two 
natural  wills  in  Christ,  you  take  away  His  freedom ;  for  what 
is  natural  is  necessary."  M.  "  Neither  the  divine  nor  the 
human  rational  nature  of  Christ  is  other  than  free ;  for  the 
nature  which  is  endowed  with  reason  has  the  natural  power 
of  rational  desire,  i.e.  the  (teX^o-is  (the  willing  of  the  rational 
soul).  But  from  the  proposition,  "  the  natural  is  necessary," 
there  follows  an  absurdity.  God  is  natura  good,  natura 
Creator,  then  was  it  of  necessity  that  HE  should  be  Creator 
and  good.  And  were  he  not  free  who  has  a  natural  will, 
then,  conversely,  he  must  be  free  who  has  no  natural  will, 
therefore  that  which  is  lifeless."  P.  "  I  concede  that  there 
are  in  Christ  natural  wills ;  but,  as  of  two  natures  GV  rt, 
crvvQerov  is  acknowledged  by  us,  so  must  we  also  of  two  wills 
admit  ev  TI  avvOerov ;  and  therefore  they  who  acknowledge 
two  wills,  because  of  the  duality  of  nature,  should  not  contend 
with  those  who  assume  only  one  will  because  of  the  closest 
union, — it  is  only  a  strife  of  words."1  M.  "  You  are  mistaken, 
because  you  do  not  perceive  that  unions  (syntheses)  take  place 
only  in  things  which  are  immediately  in  the  hypostasis  (as 
the  natures),  but  not  in  things  which  are  in  another  (as  the 
wills  in  the  natures).  If,  however,  we  assume  a  union  of  the 
wills,  we  should  also  be  forced  to  assume  a  union  of  all  the 
other  properties  of  the  natures,  thus,  e.g.,  a  union  of  the 
created  with  the  uncreated,  of  the  limited  with  the  illimitable, 
of  the  mortal  with  the  immortal,  and  so  come  to  absurd 
assertions."  .  .  .  P.  "  Have  not,  then,  the  properties  of  the 
natures  something  in  common,  like  the  natures  themselves  ? " 
M.  "  No,  they  have  nothing  in  common  (i.e.  the  properties  of 
the  one  nature  have  nothing  in  common  with  those  of  the 
other),  but  the  one  hypostasis."  P.  "  But  do  not  the  Fathers 
speak  of  a  communion  of  glory  and  a  communion  of  humi 
liation  when  they  say,  the  communion  of  the  glory  has  one 
1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  715. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS    DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRBHUS.       77 

source,   and  another   that   of   the   ignominy  ? "     (Thus   said 
Leo  the  Great,  see  vol.  iii.  sec.  176,  c.  4,  where  he  speaks  of 
this,  that  the  common  honour  of  the  Godhead  and  manhood 
in  Christ  has  a  different  source  from  the  common  ignominy 
of  both.)     M.  "  The  Fathers  speak   here   after   the   manner 
of  avTiftocTLS  (of  the  communicatio    idiomatum).     This,    how 
ever,  presupposes    two   dissimilar   things,  since    that    which 
naturally  belongs  to  the  one  part  of  Christ  (e.g.,  to  Him  as 
God)  is  ascribed  to  the  other  part  (the  Son  of  man).     And  if, 
after  the  manner  of  the  avT&ocns,  you  call  the  6e\rj^a  of 
Christ  a  KOIVQV,  you  confess  thereby  not  one  but  two  wills." 
P.   "How?     Was    not    the    flesh  of    Christ   moved  by   the 
suggestion  of  the  Logos  united  with  it  ? "     M.  "  If  you  say 
this,  you  divide  Christ ;  for  by  His  suggestion  also  Moses  was 
moved,  and  David,  etc.     But  we  say  with  the  Fathers  that  the 
same  highest  God  who  unchanged  became  man,  not  only  as 
God  willed  that  which  was  suitable  to  His  Godhead,  but  the 
same  also  as  man  willed  that  which  was  suitable  to  His  man 
hood.     As  all  things  have  the  Sui/a/u?  of  the  existent,  and 
this  naturally  is  the  op^rj  (the  inclination)  to  the  profitable, 
and  the  afopfAr)  (drawing  back,  escaping)  from  the  destructive, 
so  also  the  Incarnate  Logos  had  this  Svvafiis  of  self-preserva 
tion,  and  showed  His  op^rj  and  a<f>op/bLrj  through  His  energy : 
the  opfir)  in  the  use  of  physical  things  (yet  without  sin),  and 
the  afyopjJLri  when  He  shrunk  from  voluntary  death.     Does 
the  Church,  then,  do  something  unsuitable  when  it  holds  fast 
in  the  human  nature  also  the  properties  innate  in  it,  without 
which  the  nature  cannot  be  ?  "     P.  "  But  if  there  is  fear  in 
the  nature,  then  there  is  something  evil  in  it,  and  the  human 
nature    (of    Christ)  is  yet  free    from    all    evil."     M.  "  You 
deceive  yourself  by  similarity  of  sound.      There  are  two  kinds 
of  fear,  one  according  to  nature  and  one  not  according  to 
nature.      The  former  serves  for  the  preservation  of  nature, 
the  other  is  irrational.     Christ  showed  only  the  former  ;  I 
say    showed,    because  with  Him  all  that   was   physical   was 
voluntary.     He  hungered  and  thirsted  and  feared  in  truth, 
but  yet  not  as  we  do,  but  voluntarily."     P.  "  We  should  avoid 
all  subtleties,  and  simply  say,  Christ  is  true  God  and  true 
man,  and  abstain  from  everything  else  (i.e.  the  properties  and 


78       ,    ..  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

wills  of  the  natures.)" l     M.  "  That  would  be  a  rejection  of  the 
Synods  and  Fathers,  who  have  made  declarations  respecting 
not  only  the  natures,  but  also  their  properties,  teaching  that 
one     and    the    same    is    visible    and   invisible,    mortal    and 
immortal,  tangible   and    intangible,  created    and    uncreated. 
They  also  taught  two  wills,  not  merely  by  use  of  the  number 
two,  but  also  by  the  opposition  of  d\\o  KOI  a\\o  and  by  the 
relation  of  divine  and  human."     P.  "  We  should  speak  neither 
of  one  nor  of  two  wills,  since  the  Synods  have  not  done  so, 
and  the  heretics  misuse  these  expressions."     M.  "  If  only  the 
expressions  of  the  Synods  were  to  be  used,  then  they  would  not 
say,  fjuia  ^VO-LS  TOV  Oeov  \6yov  creaapKco/jLevij.      Moreover,  even 
if  they  would  only  hold  by  the  Synods,  they  would  be  compelled 
from  the  two  natures  and  their  properties  (which  the  Synod 
of  Chalcedon  taught)  to  infer  two  wills,  and  to  recognise  them. 
Among  the  properties  of  a  nature  we  understand  that  which 
physically  belongs  to  it,  and  to  each  nature  of  Christ  there  is 
a  will  akin  to  the  nature  (<pvcri,K(os  e^Tre^v/cev).      And  if  the 
Synods  anathematised  Apollinaris  and  Arius,  each  of  whom 
taught  only  one  will,  the  former,  because  he  declared  that  the 
crap!;  of  Christ  was  of  like  substance  with  the  Godhead,  and 
Arius,  because  he,  lowering  the  Son,  ascribed  to  Him  no  truly 
divine  will ;  how,  then,  can  we  hesitate  to  teach  two  wills  ? 
Further,   the  fifth  Synod   declared :  '  We   recognise    all    the 
writings  of  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory,'  etc.    Now,  in  these,  two 
wills  are  clearly  taught."     P.  "  Does  not,  then,  the  expression 
natural  will  seem  objectionable  to   you  ? "     M.  "  There   are 
three  kinds  of  life  in  creatures,^  the  life  of  the  plant,  the  life 
of  feeling,  and  the  life  of  thought.      It  is  the  proper  nature 
of  the  plant,  to  grow,  etc. ;    of   the   creatures  that   feel,   to 
desire;  of   the   creatures    that   think,   to   will.     All  that  is 
rational,  then,   must    by    nature    be    voluntary.       Now,  the 
Logos  has  assumed  a  rationally  quickened  humanity,  there 
fore   must   He    also,  so   far   as   He   is   man,   be  voluntary." 
P.  "  I   am    convinced    that  the  wills    in    Christ    belong    to 
the  natures,  the  creaturely  will  to  His  created  nature,  etc., 
and  that  the  two  wills  cannot  combine  into  one.     But  those 
in  Byzantium  who  oppose  the  natural  wills  maintain  that  the 
.      *  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  720. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS.  AND   HIS    DISPUTATION   WITH   PYERHUS.        79 

Fathers  had  said  that  the  Lord  had  a  human  will  /car  ol- 
Kelcoaiv  (appropriation)." :  M.  "  There  are  two  kinds  of  appro 
priation,  namely,  the  essential,  by  which  everyone  has  what 
belongs  to  his  nature,  and  the  relative,  when  we  in  a  friendly 
manner  appropriate  something  foreign  to  ourselves.  Which 
appropriation  is  here  meant  ? "  P.  "  The  relative."  M. 
"  How  unsuitable  this  is  will  soon  appear.  The  natural  is 
not  acquired  ;  so,  too,  will  is  not  acquired,  consequently  man 
has  by  nature  the  power  of  willing.  .  ..  .  If,  now,  those 
persons  maintain  that  Christ  has  assumed  the  human  will 
only  as  something  foreign,  they  must  in  consistency  say  that 
He  also  appropriated  the  other  properties  of  human  nature 
merely  as  something  foreign,  by  which  the  whole  Incarnation 
becomes  an  appearance.  Further,  Sergius  anathematised 
everyone  who  admits  two  wills.  Now,  even  the  teachers  of 
that  otVetWt?  assume  two  wills,  even  if  one  of  them  is  only 
the  appropriated  one,  thus  anathematising  the  friends  of 
Sergius  themselves.  And  when  they,  falsely  indeed,  maintain 
that  two  wills  render  two  persons  necessary,  then  the  teachers 
of  that  oi/ceiWi?  themselves  bring  two  persons  into  Christ." 
P.  "  Did  not,  then,  the  Fathers  teach  that  Christ  had  formed 
our  will  in  Himself,  ev  eavrw  ervTrwcre  1 "  M.  "  Yes,  they 
also  taught  that  HE  had  assumed  our  nature,  but  by  that 
they  did  not  mean  /car'  oiiceiaxriv"  P.  "  But  when  they  say, 
Christ  formed  our  will  in  Himself,  can  a  natural  will  be 
meant  by  this  ?  "  M.  "  Certainly ;  since  Christ  is  also  true 
man,  He  has  in  Himself  and  by  Himself  subjected  the  human 
to  God,  set  up  for  us  a  pattern  to  will  nothing  but  what 
God  wills."  P.  "  But  those  who  admit  only  one  will  mean 
it  not  ill."  2  M.  "  Even  the  Severians  say,  they  mean  it  not 
ill,  when  they  admit  only  one  nature.  But  which,  then, 
should  this  one  will  be  ?  "  P.  "  They  call  it  the  gnomish, 
and  yvcofjiTj  is,  as  Cyril  says,  the  T^OTTO?  f<w?}?,  that  we  live  vir 
tuously  or  sinfully."  M.  "  The  manner  of  life  is  matter  of 
choice ;  but  by  choice  we  will,  therefore  yva)^  is  the  willing 
of  a  real  or  supposed  good.  How  can  we  now  say,  the  will 
is  gnomish,  i.e.  of  a  yvcopfj  ?  That  means  nothing  else  than 
that  the  will  goes  out  from  a  will,  which  is  not  possible, 

i.Mansi,  I.e.  p.  721.  2.Mansi,  I.e.  p.  725. 


80  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Moreover,  if  one  ascribes  to  Christ  a  jvcofirj  (a  choice),  He  is 
thus  made  a  mere  man,  as  though  HE,  like  us,  had  not  known 
what  to  do,  had  hesitated  and  deliberated.  .  .  .  Should  we 
not  rather  say,  as  His  personality  was  divine,  He  possessed, 
in  His  very  being,  the  natural  good  ?  "  1  P.  "  Are,  then,  the 
virtues  something  natural  ?  "  M.  "  Certainly."  P.  "  But 
why,  then,  are  not  all  men  equally  virtuous,  since  all  are  of 
one  nature  ?  "  M.  "  Because  we  do  not  develop  the  natural 
in  like  measure,  nor  in  like  measure  strive  after  that  for 
which  we  are  born."  P.  "  But  yet  we  acquire  the  virtues  by 
discipline  ?  "  M.  "  Discipline  and  the  efforts  following  upon 
it  only  serve  to  drive  away  the  deceptions  of  sin.  When 
these  disappear,  the  natural  virtues  come  of  themselves."  P. 
"  It  is,  then,  blasphemy  to  assert  one  7^0)^77  in  Christ."  M. 
"  The  Fathers  use  ryvto/jLij  in  a  different  sense,  e.g.,  as  counsel, 
as  Paul,  when  he  says  :  '  Concerning  virgins,  I  have  no  com 
mandment  of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judgment  (<yva)/jL7]v),'  or 
as  advice,  or  as  sentence,  as  opinion,  view.  I  have  found,  in 
the  Bible  and  in  the  Fathers,  twenty-eight  meanings  of  yvwfirj. 
.  .  .  Those,  then,  who  maintain  a  gnomish,  or  choosing  will, 
etc.,  must  give  it  out  for  either  a  divine  or  angelic  or  human 
will.  If  they  explained  it  as  divine,  they  assume  only  a 
divine  nature  of  Christ ;  if  angelic,  only  an  angelic  nature  ; 
if  human,  then  only  a  human  nature."  2  P.  "  In  order  to 
escape  all  this,  they  say  the  will  is  neither  matter  of  nature 
nor  of  gnome,  but  it  is  in  us  matter  of  dexterity  (eVtT^etoT^?, 
Jiabilitas)"  M.  "  This  dexterity  is  either  Kara  (frvcriv,  and 
then  that  expression  only  leads  back  by  a  roundabout  way 
to  the  natural  will,  or  the  dexterity  is  a  matter  of  acquisition. 
In  the  latter  case,  they  must  maintain,  in  opposition  to  the 
Scriptures,  that  Christ  did  not  know  until  HE  learnt,  and  so 
fall  into  Nestorianism,  which  admits  only  one  will  in  the  two 
persons  invented  by  it.  If,  however,  they  call  that  one  will 
of  Christ  the  hypostatic,  then  it  belongs  only  to  the  person  of 
the  Son,  and  they  maintain  thereby  that  the  Son  has  another 
will  than  the  Father.  If  they  call  it  Trapa  $vaiv,  they 
thereby  destroy  the  natures  in  Christ.  I  should  like  to  ask 
them :  Does  God  the  Father  will  as  God  or  as  Father  ?  If 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  728.  2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  729. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS   DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRRRUS.       81 

He  wills  as  Father,  then  His  will  is  different  from  that  of  the 
Son,  which  is  heretical.  But  if  He  wills  as  God,  then  it 
follows  that  the  will  is  a  matter  of  nature.  Further,  as  the 
Fathers  teach :  Two,  who  have  only  one  will,  have  also  only 
one  substance,  so  that  the  Monothelites  are  forced  to  maintain 
that  the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  in  Christ  are  one  and  the 
same  substance.  Further,  as  the  Fathers  teach  :  Two  kinds  of 
substances  (ova-leu)  have  not  a  common  will,  yet  may  they 
necessarily  not  maintain  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  had 
a  common  will ;  or  if  they  do  maintain  it,  they  contradict  the 
Fathers."  P.  "  But  they  appeal  to  the  Fathers."  M.  "  Only 
the  Nestorians  and  Monophysites,  although  opposites,  teach 
one  will,  but  not  the  recognised  Fathers."  1  P.  "  But  Gregory 
the  theologian  (Orat.  2,  De  Filio)  says :  His  will  was  in 
nothing  contradictory  to  God,  quite  deified.  Does  not  this 
speak  against  two  wills  ? "  M.  "  On  the  contrary,  as  the 
kindled  presupposes  a  kindler,  so  the  deified  a  deifier.  More 
over,  the  same  Gregory  similarly  speaks  of  the  human  nature 
of  Christ  as  deified.  Must  we  therefore  deny  the  two 
natures  ?  "  P.  "  You  are  right,  but  they  also  adduce  Gregory 
of  Nyssa  (Orat.  1,  De  Eesur.),  who  says  of  Christ :  The  soul  of 
Christ  wills,  the  body  (of  the  sick  man)  is  touched,  and 
through  both  the  sickness  is  driven  away  (S.  Matt.  viii.  3). 
Here,  they  maintain,  Gregory  teaches  that  the  human  soul  of 
Christ  willed  through  the  divine  will  of  the  Godhead  hypo- 
statically  united  with  it."  M.  "  If  one  should  say  that  the 
willing  of  the  tyvxtf  comes  from  the  Godhead,  then  we  might 
also  say  with  equal  right,  that  even  the  bodily  touch  comes 
from  the  Godhead,  which  is  absurd."  P.  "  You  are  right. 
But  they  appeal  also  to  Athanasius,  who  (Orat.  major,  De 
Fide)  says,  the  (human)  vovs  of  the  Lord  is  not  the  Lord 
Himself,  but  His  will,  or  His  /SowX^crt?  or  His  energy  upon 
anything."  M.  "  This  passage  is  evidence  against  them.  For 
if  the  i/oO?  of  Christ  is  not  the  Lord  Himself,  then  it  is 
evidently  not  divine  fyvcrei,  but  hypostatically  united  with 
the  Lord,  and  therefore  His  6e\r)ais,  /3ov\rjcr^,  or  evepyeia. 
Athanasius  speaks  here  according  to  the  usage  of  Clement  of 
Alexandria  (Stromat.  lib.  vi.),  according  to  which  6e\7jcris  = 

1  Mausi,  I.e.  p.  732. 
v.— 6 


82  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

vovs  opexTLKos  (desiring  spirit),  /3ov\7]cn$  =  rational  desire  ;  the 
expression  evepyeia  737509  Tt,  however,  was  used  by  S.  Atha- 
nasius  because  the  Lord,  in  all  His  godlike  acts  (acts  belonging 
to  His  divine  nature),  made  use  of  the  reasonable  human  soul 
hypostatically  united  with  Him."  P.  "  You  are  right ;  but 
Athanasius  says  further :  The  Lord  was  born  of  woman,  but 
without  carnal  ^eX^aro-  and  \oyio-jjLol  avOp^Tnvoi ;  the 
0e\r}(Ti$  was  only  that  of  the  Godhead."  M.  "Athanasius 
does  not  here  at  all  speak  of  the  will  of  Christ,  but  of  this, 
that  the  Incarnation  resulted  purely  from  the  divine  will, 
without  the  will  of  the  flesh,  without  the  action  of  a  man. 
Generally,  the  Fathers  teach,  like  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that 
the  Lord  willed  and  effected  our  salvation  in  His  two 
natures."  P.  "  Have  the  great  kindness  to  show  this." l 
M.  "  According  to  S.  John  i.  43,  Jesus  purposed  to  go  to 
Galilee.  He  purposed  to  go  where  He  was  not  yet.  He 
was,  however,  only  in  His  manhood,  not  in  Galilee ;  for  as 
God  He  is  everywhere.  He  purposed,  therefore,  to  go  to 
Galilee  as  man,  not  as  God,  and  consequently  had  a  will  as 
man.  So  in  S.  John  xvii.  24,  HE  willed  as  man  that  where  HE 
was  His  disciples  should  also  be  ;  for  only  as  man  is  He  in  a 
certain  place.  In  S.  John  xix.  28  and  S.  Matt,  xxvii.  34, 
Jesus  said :  '  I  thirst,'  and  would  not  drink  the  wine  mingled 
with  gall;  but  evidently  it  is  only  the  manhood  that  can 
thirst,  and  therefore  it  was  only  this  that  willed  not  to  take 
the  unsuitable  draught.  Also  in  S.  John  vii.  1 ;  S.  Mark  ix.  29; 
vii.  24  ;  2  Cor.  xiii.  4 ;  S.  Mark  vi.  48  ;  S.  Matt.  xxvi.  17  ; 
and  Phil,  (not  Hebrews,  as  Maximus  says)  ii.  8,  is  the 
human  will  of  Christ  referred  to.  In  Psalm  xxxix.  [xl.]  7,  8, 
it  is  said  :  '  Sacrifice  and  meat-offering  Thou  wouldest  not ;  but 
mine  ears  hast  Thou  opened  [in  the  text,  as  in  Hebrews  x.  5,  a 
body  hast  Thou  prepared  me].  ..."  Lo,  I  come  :  in  the  volume 
of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me,  that  I  should  fulfil  Thy  will,  O 
my  God.  I  am  content  to  do  it.'  That  this  refers  to  Christ 
as  man  no  one  denies  ;  and  accordingly  this  passage  ascribes 
a  will  to  Him  also  as  man.  According  to  Gen.  i.  26,  man  is 
made  in  the  image  of  God ;  and  therefore  human  nature  must 
have  the  power  of  freedom,  like  the  divine.  And  if  Christ 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  736. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS   DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRRHUS.       83 

did  not  assume  a  human  will,  as  they  maintain,  then  did  He 
not  save  it,  and  we  are  not  partakers  of  a  complete  salvation. 
But  that  the  Lord  had  also  a  divine  will  is  clear  from  S.  Luke 
xiii.  34  and  S.  John  v.  2 1."1     P.  "This  certainly  proves  two 
natural  wills.     But  why  did  Pope  Vigilius  accept  the  letter 
of  Mennas,  which  teaches   only  one  will,  after  it  had  been 
shown  to  him  in  the  cabinet  of  the  Emperor  (Justinian),  and 
in  the  senate  ? "      M.  "  I  am  surprised  that  you  and  your 
predecessors,  being  patriarchs,  should  venture  to  lie.      Sergius 
said   in   his  letter  to   Honorius,  that   Vigilius  had  received 
information  respecting  that  letter,  but  not  that  it  was  shown 
him  or  delivered  to  him ;  but  you  say,  in  your  letter  to  Pope 
John,  that  it  had  been  shown  and  delivered  to  him.      Which 
of  you  is  one  to  believe  ?  "     P.  "  But  Pope  Honorius,  in  his 
letter    to    Sergius,    maintained    only    one    will."      M.  "  The 
drawer-up   of   that   letter  of  Honorius,  who  was  afterwards 
commissioned  by  John  IV.  to  write  to  the  Emperor  Constan- 
tine,  gives  the  assurance  that  he  only  said  in  the  letter,  that 
as  man  Jesus  had  only  one  will  (the  law  of  the  Spirit),  and 
not   at   the   same  time  also  the  will  of   the  members."     P. 
"  My  predecessor  understood   it   differently."     M.  "  Nothing 
placed  me  at  such  a  distance  from  your  predecessor  as  his 
inconstancy.     At  one  time  he  approved  the  expression,  one 
divine  will  of  Christ ;  at  another,  one  povXevri/cbv  GeXrjfia ;  at 
another,  one  vTroo-Tariicov ;    at  another,  egovaiaTifcov :  again, 
TrpoaipeTLKov ;  again,  yvafjufcov  ;  again,  oltcovofiiKov.     Moreover, 
by  those   documents  (the  Ecthesis)  he  has  caused  division." 
(In  that  which  follows,  Maximus   opposes  the  statement  of 
Pyrrhus,  that  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem  had  begun  the  con 
troversy.)     M.  "  We  will  now,  after  ending  the  inquiry  into 
the  two  wills,  pass   on  to  the  two  energies." 2     P.  "  As  the 
will  is  a  matter  of  nature,  so  must  also,  per  synecdochen,  the 
operation  be  a   matter  of   nature,  and  I  recall  my  previous 
assertions  in  opposition."  ...     M.  "  In  your  writings  I  have 
found  that  you  ascribe  to  Christ,  as  whole,  only  one  energy. 
Now,  as  His  whole  being  is  His  hypostasis,  then  this,  His  one 
energy,  must  also    be    hypostatic.      But  then,  would   it    be 
different  from  the  energy  of  His  Father  and  His  mother,  as 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  740.  2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  744. 


84  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

He  is  hypostatically  different  from  both  I"1  P.  "  If  you 
maintain  two  energies  on  account  of  the  difference  of 
natures  in  Christ,  and  not  one  only  on  account  of  the  unity  of 
His  person,  then  you  must  assume  two  energies  in  man  on 
account  of  the  substantial  difference  of  body  and  soul,  and 
consequently  there  would  be  in  Christ  three  energies."  M. 
"  What  you  here  allege  against  the  properties  of  the  natures 
(in  Christ),  the  Monophysites  turn  against  the  natures  them 
selves,  and  that  which  the  Fathers  have  opposed  to  them  we 
bring  against  you.  You  admit  with  us  two  natures  in  Christ, 
and  not  merely  one  on  account  of  the  unity  of  His  person. 
If,  however,  you  maintain  two  energies  in  man,  because  of  the 
substantial  difference  of  body  and  soul,  you  must  also  assume 
two  natures  in  man,  and  accordingly  three  in  Christ.  But  if 
you  do  not  admit  three  natures  in  Christ,  you  have  likewise 
no  right  to  reproach  us  for  not  maintaining  three  energies. 
Moreover,  that  which  is  one  in  respect  to  the  species  (eZSo?) 
of  man,  is  not  also  one  by  substantial  unity  of  body  and  soul. 
Human  nature  is  one  because  it  is  common  to  the  whole 
species,  and  not  because  body  and  soul  were  one.  So  it  is  in 
regard  to  the  energy.  When  we  ascribe  to  Christ  one  human 
energy  as  such,  we  oppose  the  alternative  of  either  ascribing 
the  energy  to  the  personality  (hypostasis),  or  of  recognising 
three  energies  in  Christ,  because  the  energy  works  according 
to  the  nature." 2  P.  "  Nestorius  says  that  the  persons  corre 
spond  with  the  energies ;  therefore,  by  the  doctrine  of  two 
energies,  you  fall  into  Nestorianism."  M.  "  Above  all,  Nes- 
torius  taught,  along  with  two  persons,  only  one  will.  But 
even  if  what  you  say  were  true,  that  the  persons  correspond 
with  the  energies,  then  conversely,  the  energies  would  have 
to  correspond  with  the  persons,  and  you  would  then,  on 
account  of  the  three  Persons,  have  to  recognise  three  energies 
in  the  Trinity,  or,  on  account  of  the  one  energy,  only  one 
Person.  .  .  .  So,  too,  we  should  have  to  say,  because  there 
are  several  Persons  in  the  Trinity,  there  are  also  several 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  745. 

2  Thus,  I  believe,  we  must  understand  the  meaning  of  this  difficult  passage. 
The  old  Latin  translation  of  Turrianus  departs  here  arbitrarily  from  the  Greek, 
and  is  incorrect. 


ABBOT  MAXIMUS  AND   HIS   DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRRHUS.       85 

human  energies,  whilst  there  is,  in  fact,  only  one  human 
energy  (fear  eZSo?),  and  the  Fathers  (Gregory  of  Nyssa)  say : 
That  which  has  the  same  substance  (ovaia)  has  also  the  same 
energy.  Further,  if  they  maintain  that  persons  correspond 
with  energies,  and  if  they  themselves  (elsewhere)  say,  Christ 
has  many  energies  (the  words  of  Honorius),  it  would  follow 
that  they  would  be  forced  to  ascribe  many  persons  to  the  one 
Christ.  Further,  if  persons  correspond  with  energies,  then 
the  latter  cease  when  the  former  is  removed.  The  Mono- 
thelites,  however,  now  wish  to  remove  the  expression  one  or 
two  energies,  and  therewith  would,  if  they  could,  remove 
Christ  Himself.1  If  we  consider  ourselves,  we  find  that  each 
of  us  can  walk  and  think  at  the  same  time  without,  for  this 
reason,  becoming  two  men,  and  without  mingling  the  energies 
corresponding  to  his  two  natures  (body  and  soul).  In  the 
same  way,  a  sword  which  is  made  red  hot  preserves  its  two 
natures  (iron  and  fire),  and  their  natural  operations, — it  cuts 
and  it  burns  at  the  same  time ;  but  it  is  yet  only  one  sword, 
without  its  natures  being  mixed."  P.  "But  there  is  (in 
Christ)  only  one  Worker,  and  therefore  only  one  operation, 
energy."  M.  "  This  one  in  person  is  twofold  in  natures,  and 
therefore  worked  in  a  twofold  manner  as  one,  so  that  with 
the  multiplicity  of  energies  there  was  not  also  a  multiplicity 
of  persons  brought  in.  If,  however,  we  ascribed  the  energy, 
not  to  the  natures  but  to  the  person,  we  should  arrive  at 
follies  which  have  already  been  rejected.  What  would  you 
say  if  another  maintained :  Because  Christ  is  one  person,  He 
had  only  one  nature  ?  Yet,  if  you  admit  only  one  energy, 
which  shall  this  one  be  ? — the  divine  or  the  human,  or  neither  ? 
If  the  divine,  then  was  Christ  pure  God ;  if  the  human,  then 
only  man :  if  neither,  then  He  was  neither  God  nor  man." 
P.  "  If  we  speak  of  one  energy  of  the  Godhead  and  the  man 
hood,  we  do  not  mean  that  it  is  present  in  Him  \6yw  (frucrecos, 
but  rpoTTw  evd)(rea)s  (by  the  union  of  the  Godhead  and  man 
hood)."  M.  "  If  He  has  the  energy,  as  you  say,  through 
evaxris,  then  was  HE  before  this  evwcns  without  energy,  and 
thus  created  the  world  without  energy  and  with  constraint. 
Further  :  As  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  are  not  also  hypo- 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  748. 


00  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

statically  united  with  the  flesh,  then  would  they,  in  consequence, 
have  no  energy,  and  would  not  also  be  Creator  of  the  world  ? 
Further,  you  must  call  the  energy  either  created  or  uncreated, 
for  there  is  no  third  kind.      If  created,  then  it  points  to  only 
one  created  nature  in  Christ ;  in  the  other  case,  only  to  one 
uncreated :  and  how  could  the  energy  of  a  created  nature  be 
an  uncreated,  and   conversely  ? "      P.  "  Do  you  agree,  then, 
with   those  who   understand  the  aTroreXeo-^a  (effect)  of  the 
actions  accomplished  by  Christ  under   pla  evepyeia  V'1     M. 
"  Different     actions     have     different     effects,    and    not    one. 
Although,  in  the  red-hot  sword,  the  energy  of  fire  and  that 
of   iron  are  united,  yet  the  effect  of  fire  is  burning,  that  of 
iron  cutting,  even  if  they  do  not  appear  separated  from  each 
other  in  the  burning  cut  or  in  the  cutting  burn.     We   cannot 
speak   of   one   effect   unless  where  there  is  one  action.     As, 
then,  there   are  many  actions  of   Christ,  so  you  must  admit 
countless  effects ;  or  if  you  will  hold  fast  one  effect,  then  must 
you  also  assume  one  action  of  Christ.    But  we  have  not  to  speak 
of  the  actions  of  Christ,  nor  of  that  which  is  efo>  Xpicrrov,  but 
of   that  which  is   eV   Xpicnw,  of  the  physical  relation  of  the 
substances  (ovaiai)   of    Christ,    whether   it   was    encroached 
upon  by  the  union  of  the  Godhead  and  manhood  or  not.  .  .  . 
Moreover,  you  have  not  (as  you  would  make  believe)  spoken 
with  respect  to   the  action  (TO  epyov,  aTroreXecryu-a),  but  with 
respect  to  the  physical  relation  of  the  united  natures  of  one 
energy,  and  so  have  produced  the  fabulous  animal,  the  goat- 
stag.      This  is  shown  clearly  by  the  capitula  of  Cyrus,  which 
you  have  received,  in  which  it  is  taught  that  Christ  worked 
the  divine  and  the  human  by  the  same  energy.     This  con 
tradicts  Scripture  and  the  holy  Fathers,  and  even  the  nature 
of   the  thing ;  for  no  thing  can  have,  along  with  its  natural 
working,  another  opposed  to  it, — fire  cannot  make  warm  and 
cold  at  the  same  time.      So  one  nature  cannot  work  miracles 
and  endure  suffering."  2     P.  "  Yet  Cyril  says,  Christ  revealed 
fjuiav   crvyyevf)    Si    dp^dw   evepyeiav." 3       M.    "  Cyril   was    far 
from   ascribing  to    the  Godhead  and  the  manhood  only  one 
fao-ifcr)  evepyeia,  for  he  teaches  elsewhere :  '  No  rational  person 
will  assert  that  the  Creator  and  the  creature  have  one  and  the 
1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  749.  2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  751.          3  Cf.  above,  sec.  291. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS   DISPUTATION   WITH   PYRRHUS.        87 

same  energy.1  On  the  contrary,  he  wished  to  show  that  the 
divine  energy  is  one  and  the  same,  both  apart  from  union 
with  the  manhood  and  in  union  therewith,  just  as  the  energy 
of  fire  is  one  and  the  same,  whether  with  or  without  union 
with  a  v\r].  The  Father  Cyril  has  not  thus  spoken  of 
one  energy  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  but  said  that  the 
divine  energy  was  one  and  the  same, — the  same  in  the 
Incarnate  Son  as  in  the  Father ;  and  that  Christ  worked  His 
miracles,  not  by  an  almighty  command  ( =  divine  energy), 
but  asomqtically, — even  after  the  Incarnation  He  is  o/Aoepyos 
with  the  asomatically  working  Father, — but  He  also  worked 
them  somatically  by  bodily  contact,  dffi,  and  thus  &'  apfyolv. 
The  reviving  of  the  maiden,  accomplished  by  the  word  and 
the  almighty  will,  and  the  healing  of  the  blind,  was  connected 
with  the  healing  which  was  accomplished  somatically  by 
contact.  The  divine  energy  did  not  dispense  with  the 
human,  but  made  use  of  it  for  its  own  manifestation.  The 
stretching  out  of  the  hand  (at  the  healing  of  the  blind),  the 
mixture  of  spittle  and  earth,  etc.,  belonged  to  the  energy  of 
the  human  nature  of  Christ,  and  God  as  well  as  man  was 
acting  in  the  miracle.  Cyril,  then,  did  not  make  a  mistake 
about  the  property  of  each  nature,  but  saw  the  creative 
divine  energy  and  the  f&m/c?)  (i.e.  the  bodily  energy  worked 
by  the  human  soul),  as  ao-vy^vra)^  united  in  the  Incarnate 
Logos."  P.  "  You  have  well  shown  that  S.  Cyril  did  not 
contradict  the  doctrine  of  two  energies,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
harmonised  with  it ;  but  S.  Dionysius  the  Areopagite  speaks 
of  a  Kaivr)  Oeavbpitcr)  Mpyeui" !  M.  "  Do  you  hold  this 
Kawr)  QeavSpiicr)  evepyeia  as  something  quantitatively  or 
qualitatively  new?"  P.  "As  quantitatively  new."  M.  "Then 
there  must  have  been  assumed  in  Christ  a  third  nature, 
Qeav&piKT) ;  for  a  third  energy  (and  it  was  that,  if  it  was  quan 
titatively  new)  presupposes  a  third  nature,  since  the  element 
of  proper  essential  energy  belongs  to  the  idea  of  nature.  If, 
however,  the  new  is  qualitatively  new,  this  does  not  express 
a  single  energy,  but  the  new  mysterious  way  and  manner 
of  the  human  activities  (energies)  of  Christ,  which  is  a  con 
sequence  of  the  mysterious  union  and  pcrichorcsis  (  =  mutual 
1  Of.  above,  sec.  291. 


88  HISTOKY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

interchange  of  movement)  of  the  two  natures  in  Christ. 
Even  in  the  expression,  Oeavbpitcr)  evepyeia,  the  duality  of  the 
energies  is  also  taught  periphrastically  (mediately),  because  it 
specifies  the  natures  numerically.  For  if  we  remove  the  two 
opposites  (divine  and  human  in  Christ),  there  remains  nothing 
intermediate.  And  provided  there  were  only  a  single  energy 
in  Christ,  the  QeavSpitcrj,  then  Christ,  as  God,  would  have  a 
different  energy  from  the  Father,  for  that  of  the  Father  could 
not  possibly  be  divine  and  human."  P.  "  The  proposition, 
'  That  which  is  of  like  nature  has  also  the  like  energy  (as  the 
three  Persons  of  the  Trinity),  and  that  which  is  distinguished 
in  the  energy  is  also  distinguished  in  the  nature,' — this  pro 
position  has  been  adopted  by  the  Fathers  only  in  respect  to 
the  theology  (nature  of  God),  and  not  in  respect  to  the 
economy  (Incarnation)/'  M.  "  Thus,  then,  according  to  you, 
the  Son,  after  His  Incarnation,  would  not  be  of  the  same 
theology  with  the  Father ;  He  could  then  be  no  longer 
invoked  with  the  Father,  He  would  not  be  of  one  substance 
with  the  Father,  and  the  passages  of  the  Bible  would 
be  untrue  which  ascribe  to  Him  the  same  energy  as  to  the 
Father  (S.  John  v.  17,  19,  21;  x.  25,  38).  Further,  the 
continuous  government  of  the  world  is  the  business  of  God, 
not  only  of  the  Father  and  of  the  Spirit,  but  also  of  the  Son. 
Consequently,  the  Son,  even  after  the  Incarnation,  has  the 
same  energy  as  the  Father."  ...  P.  "  When  we  speak  of 
one  energy,  we  do  not  mean  to  take  away  the  human  will  of 
Christ,  but  in  distinction  from  the  divine  energy  it  is  called 
suffering."  M.  "  Things  are  not  known  from  their  opposite 
by  mere  negation,  otherwise  we  should  have  to  call,  e.g., 
human  nature  evil  because  the  divine  is  good.  And  in  like 
manner,  we  may  not  say  that  because  the  divine  movement  is 
energy  (working),  therefore  the  human  is  a  suffering  [active 
and  passive].  The  Fathers  do  not  call  human  action  mere 
suffering  (passion),  but  also  Svvajjiis,  evepyeia,  Kiwrjo'is,  etc.,  etc., 
not  in  opposition  to  the  divine  activity,  but  after  its  own  way 
and  manner  which  it  has  received  from  the  Creator.  So  far 
as,  e.g.,  it  works  holding,  it  is  called  Swapis  ;  so  far  as  it  is 
the  same  in  all  beings  of  the  same  species  (eV  iraai,  rot? 
,  it  is  called  evepyeLa,  etc.,  etc.  And  also,  when  the 


SYNODS   FOR   THE   CONDEMNATION   OF   MONOTHELITISM.       89 

Fathers  called  the  human  action  a  passion,  they  did  this,  not 
in  opposition  to  the  divine  action,  but  in  respect  to  the  way 
and  manner  of  human  working,  itself  implanted  by  the 
Creator.  And  when  (Pope)  Leo  says,  'Agit  utraque  forma,' 
etc.,  this  is  nothing  else  than  if  it  was  said :  '  After  HE  had 
fasted  forty  days,  He  was  an  hungered.'  He  granted,  in 
short,  to  nature,  when  He  would,  that  it  should  work  that 
which  was  proper  to  it."  P.  "  You  have  shown  that  it  is 
improper  to  speak  of  one  energy  in  whatever  way  that  may 
be  done.  But  forgive  me  and  my  predecessors.  We  have 
failed  only  from  want  of  insight.  Spare  the  memory  of  my 
predecessors."  M.  "  We  must  anathematise  the  heresy,  but 
be  silent  about  persons."  P.  "  But  in  that  case  I  should  have 
to  reject  Sergius  and  iny  own  patriarchal  Synod  "  (see  sec. 
300).  M.  "It  was  not  a  regular  Synod."  P.  "If  it  must 
be,  I  will  do  it  (anathematise  the  heresy),  but  I  should  like 
first  to  visit  the  graves  of  the  apostles  and  the  Pope,  and 
transmit  to  the  latter  a  statement  on  my  error."  Thus 
ended  this  disputation,  and  the  information  is  added,  that 
Maximus  and  the  Governor  Gregory  agreed  to  this,  and 
Pyrrhus  with  Maximus  soon  afterwards  went  to  Eome,  where 
Pyrrhus  cast  off  his  error,  and  by  an  orthodox  confession 
united  himself  again  with  the  Church.1 


SEC.  304.   African  and  Roman  Synods  for  the  condemnation 
of  Monotlielitism. 

The  biographer  of  S.  Maximus  relates  (c.  14)  that,  on 
his  admonition  and  counsel,  the  bishops  of  Africa  and  the 
neighbouring  islands  held  Synods  for  the  rejection  of 
Monothelitism.2  He  evidently  thinks  that  this  took  place 
at  the  same  time  with  the  Roman  Council  held  by  the  Pope. 
As,  however,  the  African  Synods  took  place  in  the  fourth 
indiction,  so  in  the  year  646,3  a  Roman  Synod  at  that  time 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  760. 

a  Vita  S.  Maximi  in  Combefis'  edition  of  the  Opp.  S.  Martini,  t.  i.  p.  xii. 

3  The  Primicerius  Theophylact  says  this  at  the  Lateran  Synod  in  his  short 
remarks  before  the  reading  of  the  African  synodal  letters,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p. 
918  ;  Hardotiin,  t.  iii.  p.  92  ;  it  is  also  clear  from  the  letter  of  Victor  of 
Carthage,  see  below,  in  this  section. 


90  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

is  not  known.  Of  the  African  assemblies  in  question,  we 
have  three  synodal  letters,  and  a  fourth  by  Archbishop 
Victor  of  Carthage,  among  the  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod 
of  649.  The  first  of  these  is  a  united  memorial  from  the 
three  ecclesiastical  provinces  of  Numidia,  Byzacene,  and 
Mauritania,  to  Pope  Theodore,  resolved  upon  at  a  general 
assembly  of  the  deputies  of  those  provinces,  and  drawn  up 
in  the  name  of  all  by  the  three  metropolitans  (primarum 
sedium  episcopi),  Columbus  of  Numidia,  Stephen  of  the  Byza 
cene  province,  and  Eeparatus  of  Mauritania.  The  provincia 
proconsularis,  with  the  supreme  metropolitan  see  of  Carthage, 
is  not  named  in  it,  because  Fortuiiatus  of  Carthage,  himself 
a  Monothelite,  was  not  yet  deposed ;  or  at  least  his  successor 
Victor  was  not  yet  elected.  This  Fortunatus  we  shall  meet 
again  in  the  history  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council.1 

After  a  very  express  recognition  of  the  Koman  primate, 
the  African  bishops  go  on :  "  The  innovation  which  has  arisen 
in  Constantinople  has  become  known  to  us  also.  We  have 
hitherto  kept  silence,  because  we  believed  that  the  tares  had 
already  been  plucked  up  by  the  apostolic  see.  When,  how 
ever,  we  understood  that  it  was  obstinately  spreading,  and 
had  read  of  the  recantation  of  Pyrrhus,  the  former  bishop  of 
Constantinople,  which  he  handed  to  you,  we  held  it  for 
necessary  to  write  to  Paul,  the  present  bishop  of  Con 
stantinople,  beseeching  him  with  tears  to  remove  from 
his  Church  and  himself  the  new  heresy  which  one  of  its 
originators,  Pyrrhus,  had  himself  rejected,  and  to  cause  to  be 
taken  away  the  documents  (copies  of  the  Ecthesis)  which 
had  been  publicly  posted  to  the  distress  of  the  people.  .  .  . 
Because,  however,  Africa  had  been  brought  into  a  certain 
suspicion  at  Constantinople  by  malevolent  people  (see  below, 
in  this  section),  we  have  sent  to  you  first  the  letter  to  Paul 
already  mentioned,  and  pray  you  to  have  it  delivered  in 
Constantinople  by  your  representatives  (responsales).  If  Paul 
perseveres  in  his  error,  the  holy  see  will  cut  off  the  unsound 
member  from  the  sound  body.  As  we  held  special  Synods  in 
each  province,  we  should  have  liked  to  despatch  a  plena  legatio. 
Because,  however,  circumstances  occurred  to  hinder  us, 
1  Cf.  Baronius,  ad  ann.  646,  13. 


SYNODS   FOR   THE   CONDEMNATION   OF   MONOTHELITISM.        91 

deputies  of  the  different  provinces  of  Africa  have  taken  the  re 
solution  to  make  you  acquainted  with  the  present  state  of 
things." ! 

The  second  African  synodal  letter,  by  Stephen,  bishop  of 
the  prima  sedes  in  the  Byzacene  province,  and  his  forty-two 
suffragans,  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constantine  (Constans 
IL,  see  sec.  301  ad  fin.),  first  commends  the  care  of  the 
Emperor  for  the  Church,  and  his  orthodox  zeal,  and  then 
prays,  in  the  name  of  all  the  bishops  of  Africa,  that  he  would 
extinguish  the  scandal  of  the  new  heresy,  and  admonish  Bishop 
Paul  of  Constantinople  to  fidelity  towards  the  orthodox  doctrine. 
They  said  they  had  written  to  him,  and  had  asked  the  bearer 
to  deliver  to  the  Emperor  a  copy  of  their  letter  to  the  Bishop.2 

It  may  seem  surprising  that  this  letter  is  subscribed 
only  by  the  bishops  of  the  Byzacene  provinces,  and  yet  is 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  in  the  name  of  the  cuncti  Africce 
sacerdotes.  Perhaps  it  was  drawn  up  at  the  provincial  Synod 
of  the  Byzacenes,  and  afterwards  approved  by  the  rest  of  the 
African  bishops.  Such,  too,  might  be  the  case  with  the  third 
document  still  extant,  the  letter  to  Paul  of  Constantinople, 
which,  although  subscribed  only  by  the  sixty-eight  bishops 
of  the  proconsular  province  (at  the  time  of  the  vacancy  of 
the  see  of  Carthage),  was,  like  this,  regarded  as  a  general 
letter  from  the  whole  of  Africa.3 

In  the  synodal  letter  to  Paul  of  Constantinople,  it  is  said 
that  the  apostles  had  proclaimed  only  one,  the  true  doctrine 
of  Christ,  but  that  the  wicked  enemy  had  sown  tares,  i.e. 
heresies.  Even  in  Constantinople  there  had  been  published 
a  poisonous  document  contrary  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers 
and  Councils,  and  they  wonder  that  Bishop  Paul  has  not  im 
mediately  annulled  it.  They  entirely  reject  the  new  doctrines 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  919  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  734. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  926  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  738. 

3  Remi  Ceillier  (Histoire  des  auteurs  sacres,  t.  xviii.  p.  810)  is  doubly  mis 
taken,   I  think,  in  supposing  that  the  letter  of  the  Byzacenes  to  Paul  had 
been  lost,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  letter  of  Probus  to  the  primate  of 
proconsular  Africa  was  still  extant.      Probus  was  not  primate  or  bishop  of 
Carthage,  but  bishop  of  Tatia  Montanensis,  and   subscribed  the  letter,  not 
primo,  but  secutido  loco.      But  even  the  first  subscriber,   Eubosus,    was   not 
bishop  of  Carthage,  but  of  Puppita. 


92  HISTORY   OF  THE    COUNCILS. 

proclaimed  since  Sergius,  and  give  the  assurance  that,  by  God's 
grace,  they  will  preserve  inviolate  what  the  holy  Fathers  had 
proclaimed,  and  the  universal  Church  confesses,  namely,  that 
the  one  Son  of  God,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  took  true  human 
flesh  with  the  rational  soul,  without  loss  or  diminution  of  the 
Godhead,  that  He  is  God  and  man  together,  and  as  God  has 
the  divine  nature,  divine  will,  and  divine  operatio,  and  so  also  as 
man,  the  nature,  will,  and  full  operatio  of  man,  but  without  sin 
and  concupiscence,  i.e.  that  in  Christ  there  are  two  natures  and 
two  natural  wills,  as  the  Catholic  Church  has  always  taught.  In 
proof  of  this,  they  adduce  passages  from  Ambrose  and  Augustine.1 

The  fourth  African  letter,  finally,  somewhat  later  than 
the  three  mentioned,  is  that  of  Victor,  the  new  bishop  of 
Carthage,  to  Pope  Theodore.  It  informs  him  that  he  had 
been  raised  to  the  see  of  Carthage  on  the  16th  of  July  (646), 
then  passes  on  to  the  Monothelite  affair,  explains  his  faith  in 
two  wills  and  operations,  petitions  the  Pope  for  the  suppression 
of  the  new  heresy,  and  closes  with  the  remark  that  he  has 
not  written  to  Paul  of  Constantinople,  because  Africa  had 
been,  by  means  of  slanderers  at  Constantinople,  brought  into 
evil  and  false  suspicion,  as  though  this  land  had  been  guilty  of 
some  wrong  (see  below).  But  the  Pope  might  have  the  synodal 
letter  (mentioned  above)  presented  to  Paul  by  his  responsarii? 

African  Synods  are  also  mentioned  by  the  Libellus  Synod- 
icus,  which  enumerates  a  Byzacene,  Numidian,  Mauri tanian, 
and  a  Carthaginian  synod.3  But  it  not  merely  interchanges 
the  names  of  the  metropolitans,  but  also  makes  the  mistake 
of  stating  that,  along  with  Sergius,  Pyrrhus  was  anathematised 
here,  whilst  the  genuine  synodal  letters  show  that  Pyrrhus 
was  commended,  and  the  African  bishops  had  as  yet  no 
information  of  his  relapse  into  heresy.  This  took  place 
some  time  afterwards  at  Eavenna,  upon  which  Pope 
Theodore  assembled  the  bishops  and  clergy  in  a  kind  of 
Synod  in  S.  Peter's  Church,  at  the  grave  of  S.  Peter, 

1  The  same  passages  were  also  subsequently  quoted  by  Pope  Agatho  and  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  943  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  754. 

3  Mansi,  t.   x.   p.    607  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1535.     In  the  superscription  of 
the  first  of  these  four  Synods,  in  the  otherwise  accurate  Hardouin,  Constanti- 
nopolitana  stands,  by  mistake,  for  Byzacena. 


PAUL  OF   CONSTANTINOPLE   WRITES    TO   POPE   THEODORE.       93 

took  some  drops  of  the  holy  blood  from  the  chalice,  mixed 
it  with  ink,  and  subscribed  with  it  the  condemnation  of 
Pyrrhus.1 

Both  in  the  letter  of  Victor  and  in  the  united  African 
memorial,  mention  is  made  of  a  wicked  suspicion  to  which 
Africa  is  exposed.  This  evidently  refers  to  the  rebellion  of 
the  imperial  viceroy,  Gregory,  who  came  out,  A.D.  646,  as  a 
usurper  and  Emperor  of  Africa,  but  was  beaten  by  the 
Saracens  in  the  very  next  year.2  Victor  and  the  other 
African  bishops  meant  to  say,  either  that  they  and  the  clergy 
generally  had  taken  no  part  in  the  insurrection  of  Gregory, 
or  that  their  assemblies  and  letters  had  preceded  the  formal 
outbreak  of  the  insurrection,  so  that  the  evil  rumours  which 
had  penetrated  to  Constantinople,  respecting  a  revolt  which 
had  taken  place  in  Africa,  were  untrue. 

SEC.  305.  Paul  of  Constantinople  writes  to  Pope  Theodore. 

In  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the  Africans,  Pope  Theo 
dore  addressed  a  letter  of  counsel  to  Paul  of  Constantinople, 
but  only  the  answer  of  the  latter  is  still  extant.  He  boasts 
of  his  humility,  will  not  answer  hard  words  with  hard  words, 
and  then  says :  "  Your  representatives  have  had  long  conten 
tions  with  us,  and  have  demanded  that  we  should  explain  the 
notion  of  one  will  of  Christ,  and  send  this  explanation  to 
your  reverence.  .  .  .  We  present  our  view  in  the  present 
letter.  .  .  .  We,  i.e.  the  SiKaio&ocrla  (tribunal),  and  the  Synod 
of  our  Church,  confess  one  Son  and  Lord,  .  .  .  perfect  in  the 
Godhead,  and  perfect  in  the  manhood,  one  person,  one  com 
pound  hypostasis,  in  two  natures  after  the  union,  recognising 
the  difference  of  the  natures  in  their  properties.  In  the  one 
Christ  are  preserved  the  two  natures,  and  they  remain  within 
the  proper  bounds  of  the  substances,  also  in  the  ineffable 
connection  of  the  hypostatic  union.  The  Logos  remained 

1  Theophanes,  ed.    Bonn,  t.    i.  p.  509.     Libdlus  Synod,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p. 
610  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1537  ;  and  Anastasius,  Vitse,  Pontif.  sec.  127. 

2  Theophanes  (Chronoyr.,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  525)  places  his  usurpation  in  the 
year  638,  which  is  identical  with  646  in  the  Dionysian  era.     Cf.  above,  p.   3, 
n.  2.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  646,  1. 


94  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

what  HE  was,  and  became  what  He  was  not.  Therefore  we 
say  that  all  godlike  and  all  manlike  energy  proceeds  from  one 
and  the  same  Incarnate  God,  and  refers  back  to  one  and  the 
same.  Thus  no  separation  is  introduced,  and  the  mixture  is 
avoided.  .  .  .  We  confess  that  one  and  the  same  Incarnate  God, 
the  Logos,  worked  miracles  and  endured  suffering  in  the  flesh 
voluntarily  for  our  sakes ;  so  that  we  can  say :  God  suffered, 
and  the  Son  of  man  came  down  from  heaven,  on  account  of  the 
inseparable  union  in  the  hypostasis.  Therefore  we  also  recog 
nise  also  only  ONE  will  of  our  Lord,  in  order  not  to  ascribe  to 
the  ONE  Person  a  contradiction  or  a  difference  of  wills,  or  think 
of  that  Person  as  conflicting  with  Himself,  and  so  as  not  to  be 
forced  to  admit  two  willers.  We  do  not  this  in  order  to 
mingle  the  two  natures,  or  in  order  to  remove  one  of  them, 
but  in  order  to  show  that  the  rationally  quickened  a-dp^  of 
Christ  is  enriched  through  closest  union  with  the  divine,  has 
acquired  (eVe/er^To)  the  divine  will  of  the  Logos  inseparably 
united  with  it,  and  is  in  all  ways  led  and  moved  by  it,  so 
that  it  is  at  no  time  separated,  or  of  its  own  impulse 
fulfils  its  natural  movement  in  opposition  to  the  spirit  of 
the  Logos  hypostatically  united  with  it,  but  at  the  time 
and  in  the  manner  and  in  the  degree  in  which  the  Logos 
willed.  Far  be  it  from  us  to  bring  in  a  movement  of  the  man 
hood  in  Christ  constrained  by  physical  necessity,  such  as  is  in 
dicated  by  the  words  of  Christ  to  Peter  in  S.  John  xxi.  1 8  (far  be 
it  from  us  to  admit  such  a  thing)  ;  although,  literally  taken,  He 
referred  to  suffering  in  a  similar  manner  as  Peter."  At  the  close, 
Paul  seeks  to  explain  in  a  different  sense  the  passage  :  "  I  came 
not  to  do  My  own  will,  but  the  will  of  Him  who  sent  Me," 
and  appeals  to  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Athanasius,  Cyril,  and 
Honorius.1 

Upon  this,  Pope  Theodore  pronounced  the  deposition  of 
Paul,2  and  at  the  same  time  nominated  as  apostolic  vicar  over 
Palestine,  Bishop  Stephen  of  Dor  (in  Palestine),  whom  Sophro- 
nius,  years  before,  had  sent  as  his  envoy  to  Eome,  in  order  to 
depose  the  Monothelite  bishops  who  had  been  appointed  by 
the  intruded  Patriarch  Sergius  (see  above,  sec.  300,  and  below, 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1019  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  815. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  878  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  699. 


THE   TYPUS.  95 

sec.  307),  if  they  did  not  amend.1  Maximus,  too,  proceeded 
to  oppose  Monothelitism ; 2  whilst,  on  the  other  hand,  Paul 
took  vengeance  on  the  papal  representatives  in  Constantinople 
(sec.  215),  and  brought  it  about  that  the  Emperor  Constans  II. 
put  forth  the  unhappy  Typus,  A.D.  648.3 

SEC.  306.   The  Typus. 

As  this  imperial  decree  of  the  faith  has  come  to  us  among 
the  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of  A.D.  649,  it  lacks  the  title  and 
superscription,  but  it  is  called  unanimously  TVTTO?,  and  also 
TVTro?  Trepl  Trio-Tecos  by  the  ancients  and  by  the  Lateran  Synod, 
and  was  undoubtedly  published  under  that  title.  It  runs  :  "  As 
we  are  accustomed  to  do  everything  and  to  have  regard  to 
everything  which  can  serve  to  the  welfare  of  our  Christian 
State,  and  especially  whatever  concerns  the  unfalsified  doctrine 
upon  which  all  our  happiness  depends,  we  perceived  that  our 
orthodox  people  had  been  greatly  agitated  because  some,  in 
regard  to  the  economy  (Incarnation)  of  God,  recognised  and 
maintained  only  one  will,  namely,  that  one  and  the  same  works 
the  divine  and  the  human,4  whilst  others  admit  two  wills  and 
two  energies.  The  former  defend  their  view  by  this,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  only  one  person  in  two  natures  (and 
therefore)  willing  and  working,  without  mixture  or  separation, 
both  the  divine  and  the  human.  The  others  (say) :  While  in 
one  and  the  same  person  two  natures  are  united  without 
separation,  yet  their  difference  from  each  other  remains,  and 
in  accordance  with  the  quality  of  the  nature  (Trpocr^vcos),  the 
one  and  the  same  Christ  works  both  the  divine  and  the 
human.  .  .  .  We  believed  that,  under  God's  guidance,  we 
were  bound  to  extinguish  the  flame  of  discord  which  had 
been  kindled,  and  not  allow  it  further  to  destroy  souls.  We 
declare,  therefore,  to  our  orthodox  subjects  that,  from  the  pre- 

1  We  see  this  from  a  more  recent  letter  of  Stephen  of  Dor  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p. 
891  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  711. 

2  Cf.  the  fragments  of  his  letter  to  Peter,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  690. 

3  Mansi,  t.  x.  pp.  879  and  1030  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  699  and  823.     On  the 
Chronology,  cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  648,  n.  2. 

4  Here  in  a  very  improper  manner  Monothelitism  is  identified  with  the  ortho 
dox  doctrine  :  one  and  the  same  (Christ)  works  the  divine  and  the  human. 


96  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

sent  moment,  the)7  no  longer  have  permission  in  any  way  to 
contend  and  to  quarrel  with  one  another  over  one  will  and 
one  energy,  or  two  energies  and  two  wills.  This  we  ordain, 
not  to  take  away  anything  from  the  pious  doctrines  of  the 
holy  recognised  Fathers  in  regard  to  the  Incarnation  of  God 
the  Word,  but  with  the  view  that  all  further  strife  in  regard 
to  these  questions  should  cease,  and  that  we  should  follow 
only  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  five  deliverances  of  the  five 
holy  (Ecumenical  Synods  and  the  simple  utterances  and  con 
fessions  of  the  approved  Fathers,  .  .  .  without  adding  or  taking 
away  anything,  and  without  explaining  them  in  a  manner 
opposed  to  their  proper  meaning.  Moreover,  there  should 
everywhere  be  observed  the  form  of  doctrine  (o-^fjbd)  existing 
before  the  controversies  referred  to,  as  it  was  when  no  such 
controversy  had  come  into  existence.  But  none  of  those  who 
hitherto  have  taught  one  will  and  one  energy,  or  two  wills 
and  two  energies,  shall  for  this  reason  be  exposed  to  blame 
or  accusation.  .  .  .  But  in  order  to  the  complete  union  and 
communion  of  the  churches,  and  that  no  further  occasion 
may  remain  for  the  litigious,  we  ordain  that  the  documents 
(the  Ecthesis)  posted  up  in  the  narthex  [vestibule]  of  the 
great  church  of  our  residence  city  for  some  time,  in  regard  to 
the  controversies  in  question,  be  taken  away.  Whoever  ven 
tures  to  transgress  the  command  now  given  is  subject,  above 
all,  to  the  judgment  of  God,  but  he  will  also  be  liable  to  the 
punishment  of  the  despisers  of  the  imperial  commands.  If 
he  is  a  bishop  or  cleric,  he  shall  be  deposed ;  if  a  monk, 
excommunicated,  and  banished  from  his  place  of  abode 
(monastery)  ;  if  he  is  a  civil  or  military  official,  he  shall 
lose  his  office  and  dignity ;  if  he  is  a  private  person,  he 
shall,  if  of  the  upper  class,  be  punished  in  his  property ;  if 
lowly,  be  chastised  with  corporal  correction  and  permanent 
exile." ! 

As  Sergius  drew  up  the  Ecthesis,  so  did  his  second  suc 
cessor,  Paul,  draw  up  the  Typus ;  but  whilst  the  former  gave 
to  his  work,  not  the  form  of  an  imperial  edict,  but  the  theo 
logical  form  of  a  creed,  Paul  showed  himself  more  adroit,  and 
gave  to  the  Typus  the  external  appearance  of  an  imperial 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1029  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  823. 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   AND   THE  LATERAN   SYNOD  OF  A.D.   649.       97 

decree.  That  Constans  hoped  by  this  new  edict  to  restore 
the  peace  of  the  Church,  he  tells  us  himself,  and  there  is  no 
reason  to  doubt  it,  for  by  withdrawal  of  the  Ecthesis  he 
visibly  wanted  to  quiet  the  Westerns  and  those  who  held 
their  opinions.  It  is  also  clear  that,  whilst  the  Ecthesis  for 
bade  the  controversy  on  one  or  two  energies,  it  yet  proclaimed, 
inconsistently,  the  one  will,  and  so  Monothelitism,  the  Typus 
now  consistently  rejected  the  ev  OekrjfjLa  along  with  the  /u'a 
evepyeia,  and  therewith  wanted  to  be  more  impartial.  This 
supposed  impartiality  is  also  the  principal  difference  between 
the  Typus  and  the  Ecthesis,  for  in  the  fundamental  thought,  that 
the  dogmatic  development  shall  stop  where  it  has  been  brought 
by  the  five  (Ecumenical  Councils,  and  that  further  questions 
shall  not  be  brought  up,  they  are  like  each  other.  Moreover, 
that  impartiality  is  only  a  false  juste  milieu  which  places 
orthodox  Dyothelitism  on  one  and  the  same  line  with  the 
heresy,  and  prohibits  the  one  as  well  as  the  other.  Another 
difference  between  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus  is  shown  in  this, 
that  the  former  required  obedience  only  in  general,  whilst 
Constans  threatened  every  transgression  of  his  Typus  with  the 
severest  civil  penalties.  That  he  also  actually  carried  them 
out  with  all  harshness  the  sequel  will  show. 

SEC.  307.  Pope  Martin  i.  and  the  Later  an  Synod  of  A.D.  649. 

Soon  after  the  promulgation  of  the  Typus,  and  perhaps 
without  having  seen  it,  Pope  Theodore  died,  May  13,  649  ; 
and  on  July  5,  Martin  i.  was  elected.  He  had  been  formerly 
a  Koman  priest,  before  that  legate  of  the  holy  see  at  Con 
stantinople,  a  man  distinguished  for  beauty,  virtue,  and  know 
ledge,  destined  by  providence  as  martyr  for  the  Dyothelite 
faith.  The  Ada  S.  Audoeni  declare  that  the  Emperor  in  a 
friendly  manner  requested  the  new  Pope  to  agree  to  the 
Typus,  but  that  he  had  rejected  this  request  with  all  decision, 
and  petitioned  the  King  of  the  Franks  to  send  wise  and  able 
bishops  to  Eome,  so  that  the  Pope,  with  them  and  the  bishops 
out  of  all  Italy,  might  prepare  an  antidote  for  the  heresy. 
They  relate  that  the  King  agreed  to  this,  and  assembled  the 
bishops  of  his  kingdom,  in  order  to  select  deputies  who  should 

v.— 7 


98  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

be  sent  to  Eome.  The  election  had  fallen  unanimously  upon 
Audoenus  of  Eouen  and  Eligius  of  Noyon,  but  an  accident 
hindered  their  journey.1 

According  to  this,  we  should  be  forced  to  believe  that 
Pope  Martin  had  been  required  to  receive  the  Typus 
immediately  after  he  had  taken  possession  of  the  see,  and 
that,  in  order  to  be  able  to  take  more  decisive  steps,  he  had 
summoned  a  great  Synod.  But  the  Ada  jS.  Audoeni  are  a 
very  dubious  source,  and  in  one  of  the  points  adduced  are 
corrected  by  S.  Audoenus  himself,  since  he  relates  that  it  was 
after  the  Synod  that  the  Pope  made  that  request  to  the 
King  of  the  Franks.2  Bower  and  others  maintain  that  the 
Emperor  Constans  n.  immediately  confirmed  the  new  Pope, 
in  order  the  more  easily  to  gain  him  over  to  himself  and 
the  Typus.3  Muratori,4  on  the  contrary,  supposes  that,  this 
time  in  Eome,  they  did  not  await  the  imperial  confirmation, 
and  consecrated  Pope  Martin  without  such  approval.  This 
comes  out  clearly,  that  the  Greeks  maintained  subsequently 
that  he  irregulariter  et  sine  lege  episcopatum  subripuisse.5 

The  first  great  act  of  the  new  Pope  was  the  holding  of  that 
famous  Synod,  in  importance  almost  oecumenical,  which  was 
opened  on  the  5th  of  October  649,  in  the  Basilica  of  Con- 
stantine  (Ecdesia  Salvatoris)  in  the  Lateran.  It  lasted  until 
October  31,  fell  into  five  sessions,  here  called  secretarii? 
numbered  105  bishops,  chiefly  from  Italy,  Sicily,  and 
Sardinia,  with  some  Africans  and  other  foreigners.  There 
was  no  one  present  from  Longobardian  Italy,  for  Maximus  of 
Aquileia,  who  was  there,  had  his  see  at  Grado,  which  belonged 
to  the  Byzantines  (vol.  iv.  p.  364,  note  2).  The  Pope  presided, 
and  had  the  Acts  immediately  translated  into  Greek,  that  he 
might  be  able  to  send  them  to  the  Emperor  and  the  Oriental 

1  Baron,  ad  aim.  649,  n.  4  ;  Surius,  t.  iv. ;  died  Aug.  24.     These  Ada  assert, 
quite  incorrectly,  that  Andoenus  was  not  then  a  bishop.     He  became  one  as 
early  as  640  ;  see  above,  sec.  302. 

2  Baronius,  I.e.  3  Bower,  vol.  iv. 

4  Muratori,  History  of  Italy,  vol.  iv. 

5  Martini,  Ep.  15,  in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  852. 

6  The  Synods  were  often  held  in  the  secretarii,  buildings  adjoining  the  church, 
and  it  was  perhaps  for  this  reason  that  the  sessions  themselves  were  called 
secretarii  or  secretaria.     Cf.  vol.  ii.  sees.  109,  119 ;  vol.  iii.  sees.  166,  172,  186. 


POPE   MARTIN  I.   AND   THE   LATERAN    SYNOD   OF  A.D.   649.       99 

bishops.  They  have  come  to  us  in  all  completeness  and  in 
both  languages,  and  it  hardly  needs  to  be  said  that,  of  the 
Greek  documents  received  there  and  read  at  the  Synod,  e.g. 
the  Ecthesis  and  Typus,  the  Greek  text  here  presented  to  us 
is  not  a  translation  back  from  the  Latin,  but  the  original. 

First  of  all,  the  first  notary  of  the  Eoman  see, 
Theophylact,  as  master  of  the  ceremonies,  spoke  and  invited 
the  Pope  to  deliver  an  address.  He  spoke  as  follows : — 
"  Christ  has  commanded  the  shepherds  to  be  watchful.  This 
applies  also  to  us ;  and  especially  must  we  watch  over  the 
purity  of  the  faith,  as  some  bishops,  who  do  not  deserve  this 
name,  have  sought  of  late  to  corrupt  the  Confession  by  newly 
invented  expressions.  All  the  world  knows  them,  for  they 
have  come  publicly  forward  to  injure  the  Church,  namely, 
Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  Sergius  of  Constantinople,  and  his  suc 
cessors,  Pyrrhus  and  Paul.  Cyrus,  eighteen  years  ago,  taught 
in  Alexandria  one  operation  of  Christ  and  proclaimed  nine 
capitula  from  the  pulpit.  Sergius  approved  of  this,  somewhat 
later  sent  out  the  Ecthesis  under  the  name  of  the  Emperor 
Heraclius,  and  taught  one  will  and  one  operation,1  which 
leads  to  one  nature  of  Christ.  By  the  Fathers  it  is  quite 
clearly  taught  (passages  in  proof  from  Basil  and  Cyril)  that 
the  operatio  corresponds  with  the  nature,  and  he  who  has  like 
operatio  must  also  be  of  like  nature.  As  now  the  Fathers 
teach  two  natures  in  Christ,  it  follows  hence  that  in  one  and 
the  same  Incarnate  Logos  two  wills  and  operations  are  united 
without  mixture  or  separation.  That  both  are  naturaliter  one 
is  not  possible.  Pope  Leo,  too,  taught  two  wills  (proof 
passages),  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  (proofs)  point  to  the  same. 
He  worked  thus  the  divine  corporeally ,  for  He  manifested  it  by 
His  rationally  quickened  flesh :  the  human  He  worked  divinely, 
because,  for  our  saJces,  He  voluntarily  took  upon  Him  human 
weaknesses,  but  without  sin. 

"  These  men  contradicted  the  doctrine  of  Leo  and  of  the 
Council  of  Chalcedon,  since  Cyrus  set  forth  the  nine  capitula, 

1  This  is,  taken  literally,  not  quite  accurate.  Certainly  there  stands  fast  in 
the  Ecthesis  the  doctrine  of  one  energy,  but,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  forbids,  for 
the  sake  of  peace,  the  expression  fj-ta,  frtpyeia  and  dto  frtpyeiai,  and  defends 
only 


100  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

and  Sergius  the  Ecthesis.  Pyrrhus  and  Paul  have  spread  the 
heresy  more  widely.  Pyrrhus,  in  particular,  by  threats  and 
flattery  misled  many  bishops  to  subscribe  that  impiety. 
Later,  to  his  shame,  he  came  here  and  presented  a  letter 
to  our  holy  see,  in  which  he  anathematised  his  earlier 
error.  But  he  is  like  a  clog  returned  to  his  vomit,  and  there 
fore  is  properly  deposed.  Paul,  however,  has  outbid  his 
predecessor,  confirmed  the  Ecthesis,  and  opposed  the  true 
dogma.  Therefore  he  has  also  been  deposed  by  the  holy  see. 
In  particular,  imitating  Sergius  in  order  to  hide  his  error,  he 
gave  the  Emperor  the  counsel  to  send  out  the  Typus,  which 
annuls  the  catholic  dogma,  denies  to  Christ  properly  all  will 
and  all  operation,  and  therewith  also  each  nature,  for  the 
nature  shows  itself  through  its  activity.  He  has  done  what 
no  heretic  has  previously  dared — destroyed  the  altar  of  our 
holy  see  in  the  palace,  Placidia,  and  forbidden  our  envoys  to 
celebrate  there.  He  has  persecuted  these  envoys,  with  other 
orthodox  men,  because  they  exhorted  him  to  abandon  his 
error,  assigning  to  some  imprisonment,  to  others  exile,  to 
others  flogging.  As  these  men  (Sergius,  etc.)  have  dis 
quieted  almost  the  whole  world,  there  have  come  to  us  from 
different  sides  complaints  in  writing  and  by  word  of  mouth, 
with  the  request  to  destroy  the  falsehood  by  the  apostolic 
authority.  Our  predecessors  exhorted  these  men  to  amend 
ment,  in  writing  and  by  their  representatives,  but  without 
result.  Therefore  we  have  thought  it  necessary  to  call  you 
together,  in  order,  in  consultation  with  you,  to  consider  their 
case  and  the  new  doctrine."  x 

At  the  request  of  the  two  representatives  of  Archbishop 
Maurus  of  Eavenna,  his  letter  to  the  Pope  was  now  read,  as 
follows :  "  He  had  been  requested  by  the  Pope  to  appear  at 
the  Synod,  but  the  garrison  and  the  residents  of  Eavenna  and 
the  neighbourhood  (Pentapolis)  had  earnestly  entreated  him 
not  to  leave  them,  on  account  of  the  invasions  of  the 
barbarians,  and  as  no  imperial  exarch  was  present.  He 
would  therefore  ask  to  be  excused,  and  to  be  considered  as 
present.  He  thought  in  no  way  differently  from  the  apostolic 

1  This  is  the  principal  content  of  the  rather  lengthy  discourse  of  the  Pope, 
in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  870  ;  Hardouin,  iii.  p.  694. 


POPE   MAETIN  I.   AND   THE  LATERAN  SYNOD   OF  A.D.   G49.      101 

see  and  the  orthodox  Church,  condemned  and  anathematised 
the  Ecthesis,  and  that  which  had  been  recently  put  forth 
in  its  favour  (the  Typus),  acknowledged  two  operations 
and  two  wills,  since  one  and  the  same,  God  and  man,  in  one 
person  worked  both,  the  godlike  and  the  human ;  he  honoured 
the  five  holy  Synods,  and  had  sent  deputies  whose  subscription 
against  the  Ecthesis,  etc.,  he  would  recognise  as  valid." 

After  this  letter  had  been  embodied  in  the  Acts,  Arch 
bishop  Maximus  of  Aquileia-Grado  (see  vol.  iv.  sees.  267 
and  283)  showed  that  the  denial  of  two  wills  and  operations 
necessarily  led  to  the  denial  of  the  difference  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ,  and  thus  to  the  rejection  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  and  proposed  to  have  the  heretical  writings 
of  Cyrus,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  and  Paul  read  aloud,  and  to 
set  up  one  or  two  public  accusers  against  them.  Bishop 
Deusdedit  of  Calaris  supported  this  proposal ;  and  the  Synod, 
in  the  interest  of  thoroughness,  agreed  to  it,  although  it  was 
clear  that  any  one  who  maintained  only  one  will  and  one 
operation  violated  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  and  Synods.1 
With  this  closed  the  first  session. 

In  the  second,  on  October  8,  649,  Bishop  Stephen  of 
Dor  (see  above,  sec.  305),  at  his  own  request,  was  introduced 
to  the  Synod,  and  his  memorial  addressed  to  it  read.  He  says 
herein :  "  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus,  Sergius  and  his  suc 
cessors,  have  put  forth  false  doctrines,  and  have  distracted  the 
Church.  On  account  of  the  primacy  of  the  Eoman  Church, 
Archbishop  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem  sent  me  to  Eome,  in 
order  to  give  information  respecting  the  erroneous  doctrines 
of  those  men,  and  to  obtain  their  condemnation.  On  Mount 
Calvary  he  bound  me  to  this  by  a  solemn  oath,  and  I  have 
fulfilled  this  commission  immediately  and  faithfully.  To-day 
I  appear  for  the  third  time  before  the  apostolic  see,  in  order 
to  pray  for  the  condemnation  of  those  heresies.  On  this 
account  I  have  drawn  the  hatred  of  the  opponents  upon 
me,  so  that  the  (imperial)  command  has  gone  into  all  the 
provinces,  to  arrest  me  and  to  send  me  in  chains  (to 
Constantinople).  Yet  God  protected  me  and  awoke  the 
apostolic  bishops,  so  that  they  admonished  those  men  (Sergius, 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  882  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  703  sqq. 


102  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

etc.),  although  in  vain.  God  awoke  anew  Pope  Martin,  who 
summoned  this  Synod  for  the  preservation  of  the  doctrines. 
I  adjure  you  to  bring  the  work  to  an  end.  The  holy  faith 
endures  no  defilement  by  innovation.  If  Christ  is  perfect 
God  and  perfect  man,  HE  must  also  have  a  divine  and 
a  human  will,  otherwise  His  Godhead  and  manhood  were 
imperfect,  and  He  would  be  neither  true  God  nor  true 
man.  If  we  admit  two  natures,  then  we  must,  in  con 
sistency,  teach  also  two  wills  and  operations,  and  whoever 
denies  this  assails  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Quite  recently 
the  opponents  have  invented  something  new,  and  Paul  of 
Constantinople  has  persuaded  the  pious  Emperor  to  publish 
the  Typus,  which  prohibits  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers  (of 
two  wills)  equally  with  that  of  the  heretics  (of  one  will). 
The  same  people  who  formerly  taught  one  will  now  demand 
that  we  should  not  confess  one,  and  declare  Christ  neither  for 
God  nor  for  man,  as  they  would  bring  about  the  denial  both 
of  the  human  and  the  divine  will.  In  the  East,  the  heresy 
has  carried  destruction  round  it.  Bishop  Sergius  of  Joppa, 
after  the  departure  of  the  Persians,  has  uncanonically,  by 
secular  power,  taken  possession  of  the  see  of  Jerusalem,  has 
ordained  other  bishops,  and  these,  to  maintain  themselves, 
have  acceded  to  the  innovation.  I  acquainted  the  late  Pope 
Theodore  with  these  things,  and  was  by  him  named  as  his 
representative  in  Palestine,  with  the  commission  to  depose 
the  bishops  who  would  not  amend.  At  my  request,  some  of 
them  gave  a  written  declaration  that  they  would  adhere  to 
the  orthodox  faith.  I  conveyed  their  documents  to  Pope 
Martin,  and  he  confirmed  several  of  them.  I  and  the 
Orientals  repeat  now  the  petition  of  S.  Sophronius,  that  you 
will  condemn  and  root  out  the  errors  of  Apollinaris  and  Sever  us, 
which  have  been  renewed  by  the  men  whom  I  have  named,  and 
rejoice  the  world  by  a  declaration  of  the  genuine  faith."  * 

Thereupon  thirty  -  seven  Greek  abbots,  priests,  and 
monks,  who  had  resided  for  several  years  in  Eome  (probably 
driven  into  exile  by  the  Saracens),  were,  at  their  request, 
brought  before  the  Synod.  At  their  head  stood  John,  abbot 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  891 ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  711.    Stephen  of  Dor  subscribes  as  Trpwros 
of  the  ayla  o-foodos  standing  under  the  patriarchal  see  of  Jerusalem. 


POPE   MARTIN   I.   AND   THE   LATERAN   SYNOD   OF   A.D.   649.      103 

of  the  Laura  of  S.  Sabas  at  Jerusalem ;  Theodore,  abbot  of  a 
(Greek)  Laura  (of  S.  Sabas)  in  Africa  ;  Thalassius,  abbot  of 
the  Armenian  monastery  of  S.  Eenatus  in  Eome ;  and  George, 
abbot  of  the  Cilician  monastery  Ad  aquas  Salvias  at  Eome. 
They  handed  in  a  Greek  memorial,  which,  read  aloud  in  a 
Latin  translation,  requested  the  assembled  bishops  to  condemn 
Monothelitism,  and  to  pronounce  anathema  on  Sergius, 
Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  their  adherents,  and  also  on  the  Typus, 
and  to  confirm  synodally  the  true  doctrine  of  the  duality  of 
the  wills.  With  this  was  connected  the  petition  that  the 
Pope  would  immediately  cause  the  Acts  of  this  Synod  to  be 
accurately  translated  into  Greek.1 

It  was  naturally  of  interest  for  the  Lateran  Synod  to 
collect  these  and  all  other  writings  of  complaint  against 
Monothelitism  which  were  presented  to  them,  and  to  use  them 
as  material  for  their  own  decision.  Therefore  the  letter  of 
Archbishop  Sergius  of  Cyprus  to  Pope  Theodore  (sec.  302), 
and  the  four  African  letters  mentioned  above  were  read.2 

The  third  session,  on  October  17,  had  to  bring  up  from 
the  writings  of  the  Monothelite  leaders  passages  in  proof  of 
their  heresy;  and  they  began  with  Theodore  of  Pharan, 
because  that  doctrine  had  been  first  uttered  in  his  writings. 
There  were  read  eleven  passages,  which  had  already  been  noted 
from  two  letters  of  his  (to  Bishop  Sergius  of  Arsinoe,  and  on 
the  explanation  of  patristic  utterances),  each  of  which  con 
tains  the  thought :  "  The  Godhead  and  the  manhood  in  Christ 
had  only  one,  and  this  the  divine  energy."  Some  of  these 
fragments  bring  out  this  thought  more  fully,  thus :  "  All  that 
Christ  did  and  spoke,  that  He  hungered  and  thirsted,  etc., 
proceeded  from  the  Godhead,  and  happened  under  mediation 
of  the  rational,  human  soul,  through  the  services  of  the  body. 
The  Logos  is  opifex  of  the  operatio ;  the  human  nature  is  only 
the  organ."  Theodore  started  from  the  correct  thought,  "  that 
Christ  had  voluntarily  allowed  hunger  and  thirst,  and  human 
TrdOrj  in  general  "  (which  is  quite  correct,  see  sees.  296,  297, 
303),  but  it  was  an  erroneous  saltus  when  from  that  he  inferred 
the  fiia  evepyeia.  Christ  certainly  did  not  hunger  or  thirst 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  903 ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  722. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  914  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  727  sqq. 


104  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

involuntarily,  as  we  do,  nor  through  the  constraint  of  nature, 
but  only  when  and  as  the  Logos  allowed  it ;  but  the  hunger 
or  the  thirst  was  yet  not  an  evepyeiv  of  the  divine,  but  of  the 
human  nature. 

In  the  discourse  which  the  Pope  delivered  after  this 
reading,  he  endeavoured  to  point  out  the  heresy  of  Theodore, 
and  reproached  him  first  with  Arianism,  arguing  thus : 
"  Theodore  says,  the  Godhead  and  manhood  of  Christ  have 
only  one  operation ;  in  another  place  he  calls  it  condita, 
created  (in  the  words :  The  Logos  is  its  opifex) ;  thus  the 
divine  in  Christ,  to  him  as  to  Arius,  is  something  created, 
conditum."  Then  he  convicts  him  of  Docetism,  Manichgeism, 
and  Apollinarism,  because,  in  support  of  the  fila  evepyeia,  he 
says  in  the  tenth  fragment :  "  In  man  the  soul  is  certainly  not 
master  of  the  grossly  material  body ;  but  with  the  divine  and 
quickening  body  of  Christ  this  was  different,  since  it  came 
forth,  not  in  a  grossly  material  manner  (aoy/ccos),  but,  so  to 
speak,  ao-w/xttVo)?,  from  His  mother's  womb,  and  subsequently 
out  of  the  grave  and  through  closed  doors."  From  the 
acra>//,aT&>?  the  Pope  infers  that  Theodore  had  denied  the  true 
Incarnation  of  the  Logos,  and  adduces  a  series  of  patristic 
passages  to  show  that  the  orthodox  Fathers  had  maintained  a 
true  humanity  of  Christ,  with  a  material  body  subject  to 
gravity.  What  he  evidently  wanted  to  do  with  him,  as  later 
with  Bishop  Maximus  of  Aquileia  (below,  in  this  sec.),  was  to 
show  that  Bishop  Theodore  of  Pharan  was  already  anathe 
matised  by  the  anathema  on  Arius,  the  Docetse,  etc.,  to  the 
proof,  however,  that  Dyothelitism  is  the  true  doctrine,  and 
the  necessary  consequence  of  the  Chalcedonian  dogma,  he 
does  not  here  proceed.1  Then  were  read  : 

(1)  The  seventh  capitulum  of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  (sec. 
293); 

(2)  The  letter  of  Sergius  of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus  (sec. 
293);  and 

(3)  The    passage   from   Dionysius   Areop.  Ad  Caium,  to 
which    the    seventh    capitulum    of    Cyrus    appealed.     Pope 
Martin  remarked  on  this,  that  the  heretics  were  ready  to  creep 
under  patristic  passages,  and  that  Cyrus  on  this  point  had 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  954-970  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  762-774. 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   AND  THE  LATERAN  SYNOD  OF  A.D.  649.      105 

falsified  the  passage  of  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  and  made  him 
assert  a  una  operatic  deivirilis  instead  of  a  nova.  Sergius,  in 
his  answer  to  Cyrus,  had  carried  the  falsification  further,  since 
he,  repeating  the  words  of  Cyrus  (sec.  293),  said  not  only, 
like  him,  una  instead  of  nova,  but  also  omitted  the  word 
deivirilis  (OeavSpiKrj),  as  if  Dionysius  had  taught  merely  the 
IJL la  evepyeia.1  Then  were  read  : 

(4)  Several  passages  from  writings  of  the  Monothelite 
leader  Themistius,  founder  of  the  sect  of  Agnoetas  (see  vol.  iii. 
sec.  208),  in  proof  that  more  than  a  hundred  years  ago  the 
Monothelites,  particularly  Themistius  and  Severus,  maintained 
the  ^ia  evepyeia  OeavSpiitr),  and  the  former  opposed  Colluthus 
(also  a  Monophysite,  but  an  opponent  of  the  Agnoetse), 
because  the  latter  rejected  the  OeavSpLtctj  on  the  supposition 
that  this  expression  involved  the  recognition  of  two  energies.2 
The  Pope  showed  what  absurdity  resulted  from  understanding 
only  one  evepyeia  under  QeavSpucr),  and  (as  we  saw  above, 
sec.  128)  showed  very  well  what  Dionysius  the  Areopagite 
meant  to  say  in  the  passage  in  question :  "  Nee  enim  nuda 
Deitate  (Christus)  divina,  neque  pura  humanitate  humana, 
sed  per  carnem  quidem  intellectualiter  animatam  .  .  . 
operabatur  sublimifcer  miracula,  et  iterum  per  potestatem 
validissimam  .  .  .  passionum  sponte  pro  nobis  experimentum 
suscipiebat."  3  He  added  that  Leo  the  Great  also  fully  agreed 
with  this  doctrine  (of  two  operations),  and  that  Sergius  and 
Cyrus  had  grossly  misinterpreted  his  words. 

Bishop  Deusdedit  of  Calaris  is  of  the  same  view,  and 
declares  that,  along  with  Cyrus  and  Sergius,  Pyrrhus  must 
also  be  condemned.  He  had  thoroughly  approved  of  their 
heresy,  and  had  excused  Cyrus  for  the  falsification  of  the 
passage  of  the  Areopagite,  by  saying  that  KCUVTJV  must 
necessarily  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  /u'az/.4 

Finally,  the  Pope  caused  to  be  read : 

(5)  The  Ecthesis  (see  sec.  299); 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  970-980  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  775-783. 

2  On  Themistius,  cf.  Photii  Biblioth.  cod.  108  ;  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd. 
viii.  S.  652  and  658. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  986  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  787. 

4  Mansi,  Lc.  p.  987  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  790. 


106  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

(6)  The  fragments  of  the  Synods  of  Constantinople  of  638 
and  639  under  Sergius  and  Pyrrhus  (sec.  300);  and 

(7)  The  letter  of  Cyrus  to  Sergius  containing  the  approval 
of  the  Ecthesis  (sec.  301),  when  the  Pope  remarked  that  now 
the  heresy  of  these  men  was  as  clear  as  day.1 

In  the  fourth  session,  October  19  (or  17),  the  Pope 
resumed  the  proofs  for  the  heterodoxy  of  Cyrus,  Sergius, 
Pyrrhus,  and  the  Ecthesis,  and  pointed  to  the  changeableness 
of  the  Monothelites,  who  at  first  had  taught  the  pia  evepyeia 
so  zealously,  and  yet  in  the  Ecthesis  had  forbidden  its  being 
asserted.  They  had  anathematised  themselves,  and  their 
threats  to  anathematise  others  (the  Dyothelites)  were  wrong 
and  powerless.  In  order,  however,  to  show  most  clearly  that 
they  were  heretical,  before  the  Synod  should  give  their 
sentence,  the  declarations  of  faith  of  the  holy  Fathers  and  of 
the  five  (Ecumenical  Synods,  bearing  on  the  subjects,  should 
be  read  aloud  and  compared  with  the  Monothelite  doctrine. 
As,  however,  Bishop  Benedict  of  Ajaccio  made  the  proposal 
that  the  Patriarch  Paul  of  Constantinople  should  be  associated 
with  the  heretics  named,  and  that  judgment  should  also  be 
pronounced  upon  him,  they  read  next  the  proofs  against  him, 
namely,  his  letter  to  the  departed  Pope,  Theodore  (sec.  305), 
and  the  Typus  of  the  Emperor,  composed  by  him,  and  after 
wards  the  documents  which  had  first  been  used  as  witnesses 
against  the  Monothelites  generally,  the  creeds  of  the  old 
Synods  of  Nicsea,  Constantinople,  and  Chalcedon,  together 
with  the  twelve  anathematisms  of  Cyril  (under  the  title  of 
Symbol  of  Ephesus)  and  the  fourteen  anathematisms  of  the 
fifth  Synod. 

At  the  close  of  the  session,  Bishop  Maximus  of  Aquileia 
delivered  an  address,  in  which  he  commended  the  zeal  of  the 
Pope,  and  showed  that  Sergius  and  Pyrrhus,  etc.,  could  in  no 
way  appeal  to  the  five  (Ecumenical  Synods,  that,  on  the 
contrary,  their  teaching  was  implicitly  anathematised  by  these 
in  the  anathematisms  against  Arius,  Apollinaris,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  and  Nestorius,  who  had  also  taught  only  one  will 
and  one  operation.2  Also  that  Monothelitism  led  to  the 

1Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  990-1007  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  791-804. 

2  The  two  latter  sought  in  the  moral  unity  of  the  human  and  of  the  divine 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   AND   THE  LATERAN   SYNOD   OF  A.D.   G49.      107 

denial  of  the  full  Godhead  and  manhood  of  Christ,  thus  to  the 
rejection  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  Sophronius  had 
already,  in  opposition  to  Sergius,  collected  testimonies  of  the 
Fathers  for  the  two  wills,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Monothelites 
was  only  a  renewing  of  the  Severian  heresy,  in  the  foundation 
of  which  they  had  misinterpreted  the  words  of  Leo  :  Agit 
enim  utraque  forma,  etc.1 

In  the  fifth  session,  October  31,  there  was  first  read  a 
passage  from  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod  (sess.  3  ;  see  vol.  iv.  sec.  268  ad  Jin.),  in  which  every 
one  who  opposed  the  doctrines  of  the  earlier  Synods  is  smitten 
with  anathema,  and  then  a  previously  prepared  rich  collection 
of  patristic  testimonies  in  favour  of  Dyothelitism  was  read. 
The  first  division  of  these,  taken  from  Ambrose,  Augustine, 
Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Cyril,  and 
Amphilochius,  treats  of  this,  that  where  there  is  una  essentia  or 
natura,  there  also  there  is  una  operatic  and  una  voluntas,  and 
conversely,  and  that  the  will  lies  on  the  side  of  the  nature,  is 
o-vvSpo/jios  with  the  nature.  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit  there 
fore,  as  they  had  only  one  nature,  so  had  only  one  will.  The 
second  series,  from  Hippolytus  (sanctm  episcopus  et  martyr), 
Ambrose,  Augustine,  Leo,  Athanasius,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Chrysostom  and  his  two 
opponents,  Sanctus  Theopliilus  and  Beatus  Severianus  of  Gabala, 
gives  testimony,  that  these  Fathers  ascribe  to  the  divine  nature 
of  Christ  a  divine  will,  to  the  human  nature  a  human  will 
and  human  passiones,  which,  however,  Christ  had  assumed 
voluntarily.  The  third  section  shows  the  same  in  reference 
to  the  two  natural  operations  of  Christ,  by  passages  from 
Hilary,  Leo,  Dionysius  the  Areopagite,2  Justin,3  Athan- 

will  in  Christ,  the  connection  of  the  two  persons  asserted  by  them.     (See  vol. 
iii.  sec.  127). 

1  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1007  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  806  sqq. 

2  Here  are  adduced  the  two  passages  of  the  Areopagite  mentioned  in  sec. 
291,  but  the  Latin  translation  of  one  is  incorrect,  since  TTJS  avdpiairlv^  aurov 
Geovpylas  is  translated  by  humanse  ejus  operationi. 

3  The  four  passages  which  are  here  adduced  are  not  by  Justin.     They  are 
quoted  as  being  taken  from  the  17th  chapter  of  his  first  book  on  the  Trinity. 
In  the  same  manner  are  several  of  them  quoted  by  Leontius  Contra  Monophys. , 
and  the  anonymous  ancient  writing,  Patrum  doctrina,  etc.  (both  in  Aug.  Mai, 
Vcterum  Script.  Nova  Collectio,  t.  vii.  pp.  22,  24,  130).    The  three  first  of  these 


108  HISTOEY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

asms,1  Basil,  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  Amphi- 
lochius,  Epiphanius,  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  Cyril  of  Alexandria, 
Chry sos torn,  etc.  The  Synod  remarked  :  From  this  it  is  clear 
that  Cyrus  and  Sergius  contradicted  the  holy  Fathers,  since 
these  most  decidedly  taught  not  only  two  natures,  but  also  two 
natural  wills  and  operations.  It  now  remains  only  to  show 
that  the  innovators  agreed  with  heretics  already  condemned  ; 2 
and  this  was  shown  by  forty-one  utterances  from  the  Arian 
Lucius,  from  Apollinaris,  Sever  us,  Themis  tius,  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  Nestorius,3  Colluthus,  Julian  of  Halicarnassus,  etc., 
who  all  acknowledged  only  one  energy  and  one  divine  will  in 
Christ.4  Immediately  afterwards  the  Pope  interposed,  in 
order  to  draw  the  conclusion  that  the  new  doctrine  of  Sergius 
and  Cyrus  was  identical  with  the  heresies  read  out,  which  he 
showed  still  more  clearly  and  forcibly  by  comparing  the  lead 
ing  propositions  on  both  sides.  He  closed  with  the  words : 
"  The  innovators  therefore  deserve  the  same  anathema  as  the 
old  heretics,  since  they  not  only  have  not  been  alarmed  by 
the  anathema  pronounced  on  the  others,  but,  going  still 
further,  have  maintained,  to  the  deceiving  of  the  people,  that 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and  the  holy  Fathers  were  upon 
their  side."  After  that,  Maximus  of  Aquileia  and  Deusdedit 
of  Calaris  delivered  addresses  to  show  that  the  doctrine 
of  two  wills  and  energies  was  the  only  true  one ;  and 
after  the  Pope  had,  in  a  short  address,  finally  done  the 

four  passages  are  found  verbally  in  the  book  (of  pseudo-Justin)  Expositio 
rectse  fidei,  seu  de  Trinitate  (Otto,  Opp.  S.  Justini,  t.  iii.  pt.  i.  p.  34  sqq. ),  but 
not  c.  17,  but  c.  11  and  12  (the  division  of  chapters  must  formerly  have  been 
different);  and  this  writing  is  here  called  liber  iii.,  not  as  though  it  were 
divided  into  three  books,  but  because  the  author  (probably  the  Sicilian  Bishop 
Justin  in  the  5th  century)  says,  in  chap,  i.,  that  he  has  already  written  two 
books  against  the  Jews  and  heathen,  so  that  the  present  is  the  third.  (Cf.  Prud. 
Maran.  Opp.  S.  Justini,  Admonitio  in  exposit.  rectee  confessionis ;  and  Otto,  De 
Justini  Mart,  script-is,  etc.,  p.  63.)  The  fourth  passage  here  cited  I  do  not  find 
literally  in  pseudo- Justin,  but  the  sense  of  it  in  c.  11. 

1  One  of  the  passages  here  adduced  as  of  S.  Athanasius  is  no  longer  found  in 
his  works. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  pp.  1066-1114  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  854-890. 

3  From  his  treatise  on  the  "Glorious  Consecration"  (^Trt<pavovs  jituTjo-eus  = 
baptism).     The  Latin  text  of  our  Council  is  corrupt  and  gives  no  meaning — 
Epiphanius  Myeseos. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1114-1123  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  891-898. 


POPE   MARTIN  I.   AND  THE  LATERAN  SYNOD   OF  A.D.   649.      109 

same,1  the  Synod  put  forth  a  Syrribolum  and  twenty  ana- 
thematisms  or  canons. 

The  Lateran  symbol  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  repetition  and 
translation  of  the  Chalcedonian,  from  eva  KOI  rov  avrov 
(vol.  iii.  sec.  193,  p.  350)  down  to  'lycrovv  Xpia-rov.2 
To  this  is  added  that  which,  for  the  present,  is  the  most 
important,  the  new  passage :  "  Et  duas  ejusdem  sicuti  naturas 
unitas  inconfuse,  ita  et  duas  naturales  voluntates  (sc.  credi- 
mus),  divinam  et  humanam,  in  approbatione  perfecta  et  in- 
diminuta  eundem  veraciter  esse  perfectum  Deum,  et  hominem 
perfectum  (the  Greek  text  has  the  addition,  povris  S/^a  T^? 
a^apT-ias),  eundem  atque  unum  Dominum  nostrum  et  Deum 
J.  Chr.,  utpote  volentem  et  operantem  divine  et  humane 
nostram  salutem.3 

The  same  doctrine  is  developed  more  explicitly  in  the 
twenty  canons  ;  but  they  are  not  confined  to  this  point  alone,  but 
extend,  in  precise  and  clear  exposition,  over  the  whole  christo- 
logical  question,  and  anathematise  the  opposed  heresy  with 
its  adherents,  and  with  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus. 

Can.  1.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur 
proprie  et  veraciter  Patrem  et  Filium  et  Spiritum  Sanctum, 
Trinitatem  in  unitate,  et  unitatem  in  Trinitate,  h.e.  unum 
Deum  in  tribus  subsistentiis  consubstantialibus  et  sequalis 
gloriae,  unam  eamdemque  trium  deitatem,  naturam,  sub- 
stantiam,  virtutem,  potentiam,  regnum,  imperium,  vohmtatem, 
operationem  inconditam,  sine  initio,  incomprehensibilem, 
immutabilem,  creatricem  omnium  et  protectricem,  condem- 
natus  sit. 

2.  Si  quis  secundum  S.  patres  non  confitetur  proprie  et 
secundum  veritatem  ipsum  unum  sanctae  et  consubstantialis  et 
venerandae  Trinitatis  Deum  Verbum  e  coelo  descendisse,  et 
incarnatum  ex  Spiritu  Sancto  et  Maria  semper  Virgine,  et 
hominem  factum,  crucifixum  carne,  propter  nos  sponte  passum, 
sepultumque,  et  resurrexisse  tertia  die,  et  ascendisse  in 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1123-1150  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  899-919. 

2  The  Lateran  Synod  read  iv  dvo  0wrecrt,  for  the  Latin  text  lias,  in  duabus 
iiaturis  (cf.  above,  sec.  291,  and  vol.  iii.  sec.  193,  p.  348,  note  1).     The  Greek 
translation  of  the  Lateran  Acts,  however,  has  here,  e/c  dvo  Qvaeuv  /cat  ev  dv<ri 

aiv. 

Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1150  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  919. 


110  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

coelos,  atque  sedentem  in  dextera  Patris,  et  venturum  iterum 
cum  gloria  paterna,  cum  assumpta  ab  eo  atque  animata 
intellectualiter  carne  ejus,  judicare  vivos  et  mortuos,  con- 
demnatus  sit. 

3.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et   secundum  veritatem   Dei  genitricem  sanctam   semperque 
Virginem    et    immaculatam    Mariam,    utpote    ipsum    Deum 
Verbum  specialiter  et  veraciter,  qui  a  Deo  Patre  ante  omnia 
ssecula  natus  est,  in  ultimis  saeculorum  absque  semine  con- 
cepisse  ex  Spiritu  Sancto,  et  incorruptibiliter  earn  genuisse, 
indissolubili  permanente  et  post  partum  ejusdem  virginitate, 
condemnatus  sit. 

4.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et  secundum  veritatem  ipsius  et  unius  Domini  nostri  et  Dei 
Jesu  Christi    duas  nativitates,  tarn  ante  ssecula  ex    Deo  et 
Patre  incorporaliter  et    sempiternaliter,  quamque   de  sancta 
Virgine  semper   Dei  genitrice   Maria  corporaliter  in  ultimis 
sseculorum ;   atque  unum  eumdemque  Dominum  nostrum  et 
Deum  Jesum  Christum  consubstantialem  Deo  et  Patri  secun 
dum  Deitatem,  et  consubstantialem  homini  et  matri  secundum 
humanitatem ;    atque  eumdem  passibilem  carne,  et  impassi- 
bilem     Deitate,    circumscriptum     corpore,    incircumscriptum 
Deitate,  eundem  inconditum  et  conditum,  terrenum  et  coeles- 
tem,  visibilem  et  intelligibilem,  capabilem  et  incapabilem ;  ut 
toto  homine  eodemque  et  Deo  totus  homo  reformaretur  qui 
sub  peccato  cecidit,  condemnatus  sit. 

5.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et  secundum  veritatem  unam  naturam  Dei  Yerbi  incarnatam, 
per  hoc  quod  incarnata    dicitur  nostra    subs  tan  tise   perfecte 
in  Christo  Deo  et    indiminute,  absque  tantummodo  peccato 
significata,  condemnatus  sit. 

6.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et  secundum  veritatem  ex  duabus  et  in  duabus  naturis  sub- 
stantialiter  unitis    inconfuse  et    indivise  unum    eumdemque 
esse  Dominum  et  Deum  Jesum  Christum,  condemnatus  sit. 

7.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et  secundum  veritatem  substantialem  differentiam  naturarum 
inconfuse  et  indivise  in  eo  salvatam,  condemnatus  sit. 

8.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   AND  THE  LATERAN   SYNOD   OF  A.D.   G49.      Ill 

et  secundum  veritatem  naturarum  substantialem  unitionem  in- 
divise  et  inconfuse  in  eo  cognitam,  condemnatus  sit. 

9.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et  secundum  veritatem  naturales  proprietates  Deitatis  ejus  et 
humanitatis  indiminute  in  eo  et  sine  deminoratione  salvatas, 
condemnatus  sit. 

10.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  pro 
prie  et  secundum  veritatem  duas  unius  ejusdemque  Christi 
Dei  nostri  voluntates  cohaerenter  unitas,  divinam  et  humanam, 
ex  hoc  quod  per  utramque   ejus  naturam  voluntarius  natur- 
aliter  idem  consistit  nostne  salutis,  condemnatus  sit. 

11.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  proprie 
et   secundum  veritatem  duas  unius  ejusdemque  Christi  Dei 
nostri  operationes  cohaerenter  unitas,  divinam  et  humanam,  ab 
eo  quod  per  utramque  ejus  naturam  operator  naturaliter  idem 
exsistit  nostrae  salutis,  condemnatus  sit. 

12.  Si  quis  secundum  scelerosos  haereticos  unam  Christi 
Dei   nostri  voluntatem   confitetur   et  unam   operationem,  in 
peremptionem  sanctorum  patrum  confessionis,  et  abnegationem 
ejusdem  Salvatoris  nostri  dispensationis,  condemnatus  sit. 

13.  Si  quis  secundum  scelerosos  haereticos  in  Christo  Deo 
in  unitate  substantialiter  salvatis  et  sanctis  patribus  nostris 
pie  praedicatis  duabus  voluntatibus   et   duabus   operationibus, 
divina  et  humana,  contra  doctrinam  patrum,  et  unam  volun 
tatem  atque  unam  operationem  confitetur,  condemnatus  sit. 

14.  Si    quis    secundum    scelerosos    haereticos    cum    una 
voluntate   et  una   operatione,  quae  ab    haereticis  impie   con 
fitetur,  et  duas  voluntates  pariterque  et  operationes,  hoc  est, 
divinam  et    humanam,  quae  in  ipso  Christo  Deo  in  unitate 
salvantur,  et  a  sanctis  patribus  orthodoxe  in  ipso  praedicantur, 
denegat  et  respuit,  condemnatus  sit. 

15.  Si    quis    secundum    scelerosos  haereticos    deivirilem 
operationem,  quod    Graeci    dicunt    OeavftpiKrjv,    unam  opera 
tionem  insipienter  suscipit,  non  autem  duplicem  esse  confitetur 
secundum  sanctos  patres,  hoc  est  divinam  et  humanam,  aut 
ipsam   deivirilis,   quae   posita   est,  novam  vocabuli  dictionem 
unius  esse  designativam,  sed  non  utriusque  mirificae  et  gloriosse 
unitionis  demonstrativam,  condemnatus  sit. 

16.  Si  quis  secundum  scelerosos  haereticos  in  peremptione 


112  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

salvatis  in  Christo  Deo  essentialiter  in  unitione,  et  sanctis 
patribus  pie  prc^dicatis  duabus  voluntatibus  et  duabus 
operationibus,  hoc  est,  divina  et  humana,  dissensiones  et 
divisiones  insipienter  mysterio  dispensationis  ejus  innectit, 
et  propterea  evangelicas  et  apostolicas  de  eodem  Salvatore 
voces  non  uni  eidemque  persons  et  essentialiter  tribuit  eidem 
ipsi  Domino  et  Deo  nostro  Jesu  Christo  secundum  beatum 
Cyrillum,  ut  ostendatur  Deus  esse  et  homo  idem  naturaliter, 
condemnatus  sit. 

17.  Si  quis  secundum  sanctos  patres  non  confitetur  pro- 
prie  et  secundum  veritatem  omnia,  quse  tradita  sunt  et  prsedi- 
cata  sanctse  catholic*  et  apostolic*  Dei  ecclesioe,  perindeque  a 
sanctis  patribus  et  venerandis  universalibus  quinque   conciliis 
usque  ad  unum  apicem,  verbo  et  mente,  condemnatus  sit. 

18.  Si  quis  secundum   sanctos  patres   consonanter  nobis 
pariterque    fide    non     respuit     et    anathematizat    anima    et 
ore    omnes,    quos    respuit    et    anathematizat     nefandissimos 
hsereticos   cum   omnibus   impiis   eorum   conscriptis  usque  ad 
unum  apicem  sancta  Dei  ecclesia  catholica  et  apostolica,  hoc 
est,  sanctse   et   universales    quinque    synodi,  et    consonanter 
omnes  probabiles   ecclesicie   patres :  id   est,  Sabellium,  Arium, 
Eunomium,  Macedonium,  Apollinarem,  Polemonem,  Eutychem, 
Dioscorum,  Timotheum  JElurum,  Severum,  Theodosium,  Collu- 
thum,  Themistium,  Paulum    Samosatenum,  Diodorum,  Theo- 
dorum,  Nestorium,  Theodulum  Persam,  Originem,  Didymum, 
Evagrium,  et   compendiose   omnes   reliquos  hrcreticos,  qui   a 
catholica  ecclesia  reprobati  et  abjecti  sunt,  quorum  dogmata 
diabolic*  opera tionis  sunt  genimina  ;  et  eos  qui  similia  cum  his 
usque  ad  finem  obstinate  sapuerunt  et  sapiunt,  vel  sapere 
sperantur ;  cum   quibus   merito,   utpote   similes    eis    parique 
errore  praeditos,  ex  quibus  dogmatizare  noscuritur,  proprieque 
errori  vitam  suam  determinantes,  hoc  est,  Theodorum  quondam 
•episcopum    Pharanitanum,    Cyrum     Alexandrinum,    Sergium 
Constantinopolitanum,  vel  ejus  successores  Pyrrhum  et  Paulum, 
in  sua  perfidia  permanentes,  et  omnia  illorum  conscripta,  et 
eos  qui  similia  cum  illis  usque  in  finem  obstinate  sapuerunt, 
aut  sapiunt,  vel  sapere  sperantur,  hoc  est,  unam  voluntatem 
et  unam  operationem  Deitatis  et  humanitatis  Christi ;  et  super 
hoec  impiissimam  Ecthesim,  qure  persuasione  ejusdem  Sergii 


POPE   MARTIN  I.   AND  THE  LATER  AN   SYNOD   OF  A.D.   649.      113 

facta  est  ab  Heraclio  quondam  imperatore  adversus  ortho- 
doxam  fidem,  unam  Christ!  Dei  voluntatem,  et  unam  ex 
concinnatione  definientem  opera tionem  venerari ;  sed  et  omnia, 
quse  pro  ea  impie  ab  eis  scripta  vel  acta  sunt ;  et  illos  qui 
earn  suscipiunt,  vel  aliquid  de  his,  quas  pro  ea  scripta  vel  acta 
sunt ;  et  cum  illis  denuo  scelerosum  Typum,  qui  ex  suasione 
praedicti  Pauli  nuper  factus  est  a  serenissimo  principe  Con 
stantino  Imperatore  contra  catholicam  ecclesiam,  utpote  duas 
naturales  voluntates  et  operationes,  divinam  et  humanam,  quae 
a  sanctis  patribus  in  ipso  Christo  vero  et  Salvatore  nostro 
pie  prsedicantur,  cum  una  voluntate  et  operatione,  quee  ab 
hereticis  impie  in  eo  veneratur,  pariter  denegare  et  taciturni- 
tate  constringi  promulgantem,  et  propterea  cum  sanctis 
patribus  et  scelerosos  haereticos,  ab  omni  reprehensione  et 
condemnatione  injuste  liberari  definientem,  in  amputationem 
catholicoe  ecclesise  definitionum  seu  regular  Si  quis  igitur, 
juxta  quod  dictum  est,  consonanter  nobis  omnia  haac 
impiissima  hsereseos  illorum  dogmata,  et  ea  quse  pro  illis 
aut  in  definitione  eorum  a  quolibet  impie  conscripta  sunt,  et 
denominatos  haereticos,  Theodorum  dicimus,  Cyrum  et  Sergium, 
Pyrrhum  et  Paulum  non  respuit  et  anathematizat,  utpote 
catholicse  ecclesioe  rebelles  exsistentes ;  aut  si  quis  aliquem  de 
his,  qui  ab  illis  vel  similibus  eorum  in  scripto  vel  sine  scripto, 
quocumque  modo  vel  loco  aut  tempore  temere  depositi  sunt 
aut  condemnati,  utpote  similia  eis  minime  credentem,  sed 
sanctorum  patrum  nobiscum  confitentem  doctrinam,  uti 
condemnatum  habet  aut  omnino  depositum ;  sed  non  arbi- 
trantur  hujusmodi,  quicumque  fuerit,  hoc  est,  sive  episcopus, 
aut  presbyter,  vel  diaconus,  sive  alterius  cujuscumque 
ecclesiastici  ordinis,  aut  monachus,  vel  laicus,  pium  et 
orthodoxum,  et  catholics  ecclesire  propugnatorem,  atque  in 
ipso  firmius  consolidatum,  in  quo  vocatus  est  a  Domino  ordine, 
illos  autem  impios  atque  detestabilia  eorum  pro  hoc  judicia 
vel  sententias  vacuas  et  invalidas  atque  infirmas,  magis  autem 
profanas  et  exsecrabiles  vel  reprobabiles  arbitratur,  hujusmodi 
condemnatus  sit. 

19.  Si  quis  ea  quse  scelerosi  haeretici  sapiunt,  indubitanter 
professus  atque  intelligens,  per  inanem  proterviam  dicit  haec 
pietatis  esse  dogmata,  quaa  tradiderunt  ab  initio  speculatores 

v.— 8 


114  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

et  ministri  verbi,  hoc  est  dicere,  sanctae  et  universales  quinque 
synodi,  calumnians  utique  ipsos  sanctos  patres,  et  memoratas 
sanctas  quinque  synodos,  in  deceptione  simplicium,  vel 
susceptione  suse  profanae  perfidiae,  hujusmodi  condemnatus 
sit. 

20.  Si  quis  secundum  scelerosos  haereticos  quocumque 
modo,  aut  verbo,  aut  tempore,  aut  loco  terminos  removens 
illicite,  quos  posuerunt  firmius  sancti  catholicae  ecclesia 
patres,  id  est  sanctas  et  universales  quinque  synodi,  novitates 
temere  exquirere,  et  fidei  alterius  expositiones,  aut  libellos,  aut 
epistolas,  aut  conscripta,  aut  subscriptiones,  aut  testimonia 
falsa,  aut  synodos,  aut  gesta  monumentorum,  aut  ordinationes 
vacuas  et  ecclesiasticae  regulae  incognitas,  aut  loci  servatores, 
i.e.  vicarios  incongruos  l  et  irrationabiles  ;  et  compendiose,  si 
quid  aliud  impiissimis  haereticis  consuetum  est  agere,  per 
diabolicam  operationem  tortuose  et  callide  agit  contra  pias 
orthodoxorum  catholicae  ecclesiae,  hoc  est  dicere,  paternas 
ejus  et  synodales  praedicationes,  ad  eversionem  sincerrimte 
in  Dominum  Deum  nostrum  confessionis ;  et  usque  in 
finem  sine  poenitentia  permanet  haec  impie  agens,  hujus 
modi  in  saecula  saeculorum  condemnatus  sit,  et  dicat  omnis 
populas,  fiat,  fiat.2 

The  whole  was  subscribed,  first  by  the  Pope,  by  all  the 
members,  and  somewhat  later  also  by  three  other  bishops 
who  had  not  been  present :  John  of  Milan,  Malliodorus 
of  Dortona,  and  John  of  Calaris  (Cagliari)  in  Sardinia, 
probably  the  successor  of  Deusdedit,  whom  we  have  seen 
active  at  our  Synod. 

The  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  were  now  sent  into  all 
the  countries  of  Christendom,  and  an  Encyclical  from  the 
Pope  and  Council  in  common  was  sent  to  all  bishops,  priests, 
deacons,  abbots,  monks,  ascetes,  and  to  the  whole  Church,  in 
which,  after  a  complete  relation  of  the  whole  process  of 
events,  the  readers  are  requested,  like  the  Lateran  Council,  to 
confirm  in  a  written  document  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers, 

1  So  we  should  read  instead  of  the  meaningless  loci  servaturas  incongruas. 
This  is  clear  both  from  the  Greek  translation  and  from  Actio  viii.  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  where  this  canon  is  repeated. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  1151  sq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  922  sqq. 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   AND  THE  LATERAN   SYNOD   OF  A.D.   649.      115 

and  to  pronounce  anathema  upon  the  new  heretics,  with 
their  propositions,  and  with  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus  and 
their  adherents.  It  closes  with  an  exhortation,  accompanied 
with  many  Scripture  passages,  on  no  account  to  accede  to  the 
heresy  and  the  Typus  and  the  Ecthesis.1 

The  second  letter  issued  by  the  Pope  and  the  Synod  iu 
common  is  that  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constantine  (Con- 
stans  II.),  in  which  he  is  very  politely  informed  that  the 
Synod  has  confirmed  the  true  doctrine,  and  has  condemned 
the  new  heresy,  which  ascribes  no  will  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ.  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus, 
and  Paul  had  attacked  the  perfect  humanity  of  Christ,  and 
for  the  confirmation  of  the  heresy  had  surreptitiously 
put  forth  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus,  and  deceived  the 
Emperor.  Eequested  on  all  sides  no  longer  to  tolerate 
this,  the  apostolic  see  had  summoned  the  Synod,  and 
there  was  now  sent  to  the  Emperor  a  Greek  translation  of 
its  Acts,  so  that  he  also  might  condemn  the  heretics  and 
the  heresy,  for  along  with  the  orthodox  faith  the  empire 
would  also  flourish,  and  God  would  then  grant  it  victory  over 
the  barbarians.2 

To  the  copy  of  the  Encyclical  and  the  synodal  Acts  in 
tended  for  Tungern,  the  Pope  added  a  special  letter  to  Amandus, 
the  bishop  of  that  place,  asking  him  to  bring  it  about 
that  Synods  should  be  held  in  the  kingdom  of  Austrasia 
for  the  condemnation  of  the  new  heresy,  and  that  some 
Prankish  bishops  should  be  sent  to  Kome  by  King  Sigebert, 
in  order  to  go  with  the  papal  embassy  to  Constantinople, 
and  deliver  the  decrees  of  the  Frankish  Synod,  together 
with  those  of  the  Lateran  Council,  to  the  Emperor.3 
The  same  request  was  made  by  the  Pope  to  the  bishops 
of  Neustria  and  King  Chlodwig  n. ;  and  Archbishop 
Audoenus  of  Eouen  and  Bishop  Eligius  of  Noyon  were 
chosen  to  be  sent  to  Eome  for  this  purpose ;  but  their 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1170-1183;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  933  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  790  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  626. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1183  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  945.     At  the  same  time,  the  Pope 
in  this  letter  requested  Bishop  Amandus  not  to  resign,  which,  from  grief  at  the 
bad  conduct  of  his  clergy,  he  had  resolved  to  do,  and  actually  carried  out ;  cf. 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  649,  n.  6. 


116  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

departure  was  hindered,  as  Eligius   relates  in  his  biography 
of  Audoenus.1 


SEC.  308.  Letters  of  Pope  Martin  i. 

How  greatly  Pope  Martin  endeavoured  to  obtain  the 
universal  rejection  of  the  new  heresy,  is  shown  by  several 
letters  written  by  him  soon  after  the  end  of  the  Lateran 
Synod,  particularly  that  addressed  to  the  Church  of  Carthage, 
and  the  bishops,  clergy,  and  laity  subject  to  that  Church,  that 
is,  to  the  Christendom  of  Latin  Africa.  In  this  he  commends 
the  synodal  letters  which  the  Africans  had  sent  to  the  holy 
see  on  the  subject  of  Monothelitism  (see  sec.  304);  they  had 
there  shown  themselves  to  be  a  lamp  of  orthodoxy,  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  had  made  them  this  by  the  glorious  orator  of 
their  Church,  Augustine.  The  Pope  now  sent  to  them  the 
synodal  Acts  and  the  Encyclica ;  they  would  there  recognise 
their  own  doctrine.  Finally,  he  exhorts  them  to  steadfastness 
in  orthodoxy,  and  foresees  conflicts  for  them.2 

In  another  letter,  the  Pope  named  as  his  vicar  in  the 
East,  Bishop  John  of  Philadelphia,  who  _had  been  strongly 
recommended  to  him  by  Stephen  of  Dor  and  the  Oriental 
monks,  commissioning  him  to  put  an  end  to  disorders,  and  to 
appoint  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  in  all  the  cities  of  the 
patriarchates  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem.  He  was  to  carry 
through  that  which  had  been  previously  committed  to  Bishop 
Stephen  of  Dor,  which,  however,  he  had  been  unable  to 
accomplish  on  account  of  hindrances  from  others.3 

He  was  to  advance  worthy  men  in  ecclesiastical  positions, 
and  bring  back,  by  constant  admonition,  the  deposed  to  the 
right  way.  If  this  succeeded,  he  might  then,  if  they  were 
otherwise  upright,  reinstate  them  in  their  offices,  and  require 
of  them  a  written  confession  of  the  orthodox  faith.  Those 
bishops  who,  during  the  patriarchate  of  Sophronius,  had  been 
appointed  without  his  knowledge  or  will,  must  be  deposed ; 

1  Baronius,  ad  ann.  649,  n.  4  and  37  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  649,  n.  6.     Cf.  above, 
beginning  of  this  section. 

2  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  798  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  634. 

3  Cf.  on  this  subject,  below,  the  letter  to  Pantaleon.      , 


LETTERS   OF   POPE   MARTIN  I.  117 

those,  on  the  contrary,  should  be  confirmed  who,  either  before 
the  entrance  of  Sophronius  on  office  or  after  his  death, 
through  force  of  circumstances,  had  been  appointed  uncan- 
onically.  Macedonius  of  Antioch,  however,  and  Peter  of 
Alexandria,  had  been  intruded  quite  irregularly,  and  at  the 
same  time  were  heretics.  That  Bishop  John  might  under 
stand  the  right  faith  and  promulgate  it  elsewhere,  the  Pope 
sent  him  the  synodal  Acts  and  the  Encyclica.  Moreover,  he 
would  be  supported  in  his  new  office  by  Bishop  Theodore  of 
Esbus  and  others,  to  whom  the  Pope  had  written,  to  this  end.1 
These  letters,  addressed  to  the  distinguished  layman  Peter,  to 
the  Archimandrite  George  in  the  monastery  of  S.  Theodosius, 
and  to  the  bishops  Theodore  of  Esbus  and  Anthony  of 
Bacatha  (in  Arabia,  but  belonging  to  the  ecclesiastical  pro 
vince  of  Palaestina  ill.),  are  also  still  extant.2  We  learn  from 
these  that  the  two  bishops  had  been  on  the  side  of  the  heresy, 
but  had  sent  to  the  Pope  an  orthodox  declaration  of  faith, 
and  thereby  had  obtained  his  confirmation. 

To  the  same  class  belongs  also  the  papal  letter  to  Pan- 
taleon  (more  about  this  is  not  known),  who  had  unjustly 
accused  Bishop  Stephen  of  Dor  with  the  Pope.  Martin 
regrets  that  the  documents  had  been  withheld  from  Stephen, 
whereby  he  had  been  empowered  to  appoint  bishops  and 
clergy,  whilst  he  had  obtained  authority  to  depose  others. 
By  this  means  there  had  come  about  a  lack  of  clergy  in  those 
parts.  The  Pope  had  now  appointed  a  new  vicar,  and 
had  prescribed  to  him  whom  he  was  to  confirm  and  whom 
not.  He  closes  with  an  exhortation  to  hold  fast  the  orthodox 
doctrine.3 

Pope  Martin,  further,  sent  forth  an  encyclical  letter  to  all 
the  faithful  of  the  patriarchates  of  Jerusalem  and  Antioch,  in 
which  he  acquaints  them  with  the  decrees  of  the  Lateran 
Synod,  warns  them  against  Macedonius  and  Peter,  the  un- 
sanctioned  bishops  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria,  who  had 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  806  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  639.     Philadelphia  lies  near  to  Jeru 
salem  on  the  east  side,  and  near  to  this  Esbus, — both  cities  belonging  ecclesias 
tically  to  the  province  of  Arabia. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  815  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  647  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  J.c..p.  822 ;  Hardouin,  Lc.  p.  651. 


118  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

accepted  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus ;  and  requires  adhesion 
to  the  orthodox  doctrine  and  to  the  new  papal  vicar.1 

Immediately  after  the  close  of  the  Lateran  Synod,  finally 
were  despatched  the  two  papal  letters  to  Archbishop  Paul  of 
Thessalonica  and  his  Church.  Even  before  the  opening  of  the 
Lateran  Council,  Paul  of  Thessalonica  had  expressed  himself  in 
a  heterodox  manner  in  his  Synodica,  which  he  sent  to  Eorne. 
As,  however,  his  deputies  gave  the  assurance  that  he  had 
certainly  no  heretical  meaning,  and  would  immediately  correct 
himself  on  the  Pope's  admonition,  the  latter  sent  him  a  for 
mulary  of  faith  for  his  acceptance.  Paul,  however,  put  this 
aside,  and  by  an  artifice  induced  the  papal  representatives  to 
accept  from  him  a  different  declaration  of  faith,  also  in  the 
form  of  a  synodal  letter,  in  which  the  expressions  will  and 
energy  were  entirely  avoided,  and  much  else  was  added  in  the 
interest  of  Monothelitism.  This  new  document  arrived  at 
Borne  November  1,  649,  just  as  the  Lateran  Council  was 
closed,  and  Martin  i.  immediately  anathematised  and  pro 
nounced  the  deposition  of  Paul,  and  informed  him  of  this  in 
writing,  remarking  that  he  could  avoid  this  judgment  only 
through  acceptance  of  the  Lateran  decrees.  In  a  second 
letter,  he  informed  the  clergy  and  laity  of  Thessalonica  of  this, 
so  that  the  faithful  might  abstain  from  all  intercourse  with 
the  deposed  bishop  until  he  amended.  If  he  did  not  so, 
then  another  bishop  must  be  elected.2 

SEC.  309.  Pope  Martin  i.  becomes  a  Martyr  for  Dyothelitism. 

Whilst  the  Lateran  Synod  was  still  assembled,  the 
Emperor  sent  his  chamberlain,  Olympius,  as  exarch  to  Italy, 
with  the  commission  that  he  should  obtain  the  subscription 
of  the  Typus  by  prudence  and  force,  and  should  overthrow 
the  Pope.  In  case,  however,  he  should  find  that  the  multi 
tude  were  not  favourably  inclined  in  this  matter,  he  should 
say  nothing  of  his  commission,  and  first  seek  to  gain  the 
attachment  of  the  troops,  and  especially  of  those  in  Eome 
and  Eavenna.  When  Olympius  came  to  Eome,  he  found  the 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  827  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  655. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  834  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  662. 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   BECOMES   A  MARTYR  FOR    DYOTHELITISM.      119 

Church  there  united  with  the  Italian  bishops,  i.e.  assembled 
in  Synod.  He  had  a  mind  to  have  the  Pope  murdered  by  his 
sword-bearer,  whilst  he  was  administering  the  communion  to 
him ;  but  by  a  miracle  his  esquire  could  not  see  the  Pope, 
either  at  the  communion  or  at  the  kiss  of  peace,  and  this 
made  such  an  impression  upon  Olympius,  that  he  came  to  an 
understanding  with  the  Pope,  and  disclosed  to  him  the 
intentions  of  the  Court  of  Constantinople.  He  afterwards 
went  with  his  troops  to  Sicily,  in  order  to  oppose  the  Sara 
cens  who  had  settled  there,  and  found  death  there  in  conse 
quence  of  a  plague  which  had  broken  out  in  his  army.  Thus 
relates  Anastasius.1  From  another  side  we  learn  that 
Olympius  was  accused  of  rebellion,  and  the  Greeks  re 
proached  the  Pope  for  not  having  restrained  him  from  his 
crime.2 

Hard  times  for  Pope  Martin  began  with  the  arrival  of 
the  new  exarch,  Theodore  Calliopa,  who  entered  Home  with 
an  army,  June  15,  653,  commissioned  by  the  Emperor  to 
cast  the  Pope  into  prison.  What  took  place  in  consequence 
we  learn  chiefly  from  Pope  Martin  himself,  who  through 
all  his  misfortunes  preserved  a  lofty  mind,  so  that  he  wrote 
to  a  friend,  exsultem  potius  quam  fleam,  and  hoped  at  least 
this  gain  from  his  sufferings,  that  his  oppressors  would  thereby 
be  brought  to  repentance.3  After  Martin's  letter,  the  second 
source  for  us  is  the  treatise  written  by  an  admirer  of  the 
Pope, — Commemoratio  eorum  quce  sceviter  et  sine  Dei  respectu 
acta  sunt  .  .  .  in  sanctum  et  apostolicum  novum  revera  confes 
sor  em  et  martyr  em  Martinum  Papam,  etc.,4  and  here,  as  else 
where,  it  is  a  relation  of  shocking  occurrences  given  with  a 
bleeding  heart,  yet  with  such  objective  treatment  that  the 
fidelity  of  these  documents  has  never  been  doubted. 

The  Pope  saw  beforehand  what  was  about  to  happen,  and 

1  Anastas.  Vitas  Pontif. ,  sees.  130,  133,  t.  iv.  p.  48  sqq.;  in  Baroniiis,  ad  ami. 
649,  n.  49  sqq.  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  aim.  649,  n.  7  and  9  ;  and  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd. 
ix.  S.  268  sqq. 

-  Commemoratio  eorum  quse  .  .  .  acta  sunt  .  .  .  in  Sanctum  Martinum,  etc., 
in  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  855  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  680.  Cf.  Muratori,  Hist,  of  Italy, 
vol.  iv. 

"  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  851,  853  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  676,  678. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  853  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  678  sqq. 


120  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

therefore,  on  the  arrival  of  Calliopa,  on  Saturday,  June  15, 
653,  he  betook  himself  with  his  clergy  into  the  Church  of 
the  Saviour,  or  Basilica  Constantini  (Lateran),  which  lay  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  Episcopium,  or  bishop's  residence. 
Politeness  required  that  he  should  send  a  deputation  of  the 
clergy  to  convey  a  greeting  to  the  exarch ;  but  he  was  him 
self  unable  to  meet  him,  as  he  had  been  sick  for  eight  months. 
The  exarch  pretended  friendship,  and  declared,  when  he  did 
not  see  the  Pope  amongst  those  who  had  arrived,  that  he 
would  himself  go  to  him  on  the  morrow  and  pay  his  respects. 
On  the  following  day,  however,  he  put  off  his  visit,  excusing 
himself  on  the  plea  of  great  fatigue,  but  really  for  the  reason 
that  many  of  the  faithful  had  on  this  Sunday  gathered  round 
the  Pope  for  divine  service,  and  therefore  an  act  of  violence 
did  not  seem  advisable.  On  the  following  Monday  the  exarch 
sent  his  secretary,  Theodore,  with  a  retinue  to  the  Pope,  to 
ask  him  why  he  had  collected  weapons  and  stones  in  his 
dwelling.  To  deprive  this  false  accusation  of  force,  the  Pope 
allowed  the  envoys  to  go  round  the  whole  episcopium,  and  as 
they  nowhere  discovered  weapons,  etc.,  he  made  the  complaint 
that  false  charges  were  allowed  to  be  made  against  him,  as, 
e.g.,  that  he  had  offered  armed  opposition  to  the  in/amis 
Olympius. 

The  Pope  had  caused  his  bed  to  be  placed  in  front  of  the 
altar  in  the  Lateran  church ;  and  at  midnight  the  military 
forced  their  way  into  the  church  with  lances  and  swords,  bow 
•and  shield.  Lamps  and  tapers  were  overturned,  and  a  noise 
like  thunder  arose  through  the  clash  of  weapons.  Calliopa  im 
mediately  communicated  to  the  priests  and  deacons  a  decree  to 
the  effect  that  Martin  had  acquired  the  bishopric  irregulariter 
tt  sine  lege  (see  above,  sec.  307),  and  was  not  worthy  of  confir 
mation  in  the  apostolic  see ;  but  he  must  be  conveyed  to  Con 
stantinople,  and  another  must  be  elected  in  his  stead.1  Pope 
Martin  further  relates  that  he  was  then  accused,  with  respect 
to  the  faith,  as  though  he  had  not  taught  correctly  in  regard 
to  the  Holy  Virgin,  and  had,  together  with  many,  sent  a  tomus 
to  the  Saracens,  as  to  what  they  should  believe,  all  of  which 

1  Martini  Ep.  2,  ad  Theod.,  in  Mansi,    I.e.  pp.  851,  852  ;   Hardouin,  I.e. 
pp.  676,  677. 


POPE   MAKTIN  I.   BECOMES   A  MARTYR  FOR  DYOTHELITISM.      121 

was  untrue,  and  he  had  only  given  alms  to  some  Christians 1 
who  came  from  a  Saracen  country.  The  Pope  would  make 
no  opposition  to  violence,  was  not  subjected  to  constraint,  and 
voluntarily  surrendered  himself.  He  was  unwilling  that 
blood  should  be  shed  on  his  account.  At  his  request  he 
obtained  the  assurance  that  he  might  take  with  him  the  clergy 
whom  he  wished,  and  he  was  led  into  the  palace,  whilst  the 
populace  cried :  "  Anathema  to  every  one  who  maintains  that 
Martin  has  violated  the  faith,  and  anathema  to  him  who  does 
not  continue  in  the  true  faith."  In  order  to  appease  them, 
the  exarch  declared  that  there  was  no  question  of  the  faith, 
and  in  this  respect  there  was  no  difference  between  Greeks 
and  Romans.2 

On  Tuesday,  the  Pope  was  visited  by  the  assembled  clergy, 
and  they  almost  all  wanted  to  accompany  him  to  Constan 
tinople.  But  in  the  night  between  Tuesday  and  Wednesday 
he  was  violently  separated  from  all  his  friends,  conveyed  out 
of  the  city,  and  brought  to  the  harbour.  Only  six  servants 
and  a  cauculus*  were  left  to  him.  Moreover,  the  gates  of  the 
city  of  Eome  were  closed,  so  that  no  one  could  follow  him. 
Immediately  afterwards  they  set  sail,  and  after  three  months 
reached  the  island  of  Naxos,  where  the  Pope  had  to  remain  a 
whole  year  as  a  prisoner.  The  only  recreation  was  that  he 
bathed  two  or  three  times,  and  was  permitted  to  lodge  in  a 
hospitium  in  the  city ;  but  the  presents  which  the  faithful 
brought  him  were  taken  by  his  warders.4  They  sent  the 
news  of  his  arrest  to  Constantinople  beforehand,  and  described 
him  as  a  heretic  and  rebel.  On  September  17,  654,  they 
landed  at  last  at  Constantinople,  and  from  morning  to  evening, 
the  Pope,  lying  in  bed  on  the  ship,  was  mocked,  insulted,  and 
persecuted.  Towards  sundown  there  came  at  last  a  writer, 
Sagoleva  by  name,  with  a  guard,  and  had  him  conveyed  to 
the  prison  Prandearia.  He  was  very  carefully  locked  up, 

1  Martini  Ep.  1,  ad  Thcod.,  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  850  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  675. 

2  Martini  Ep.  2,  ad  Thcod.  I.e. 

3  Either  =  famulus,  or  =  a  precious  casket.     Cf.  Du  Cange,  Gloss,  ad  v.  cau- 
culus  3,  and  caucus  2  ;  also  Muratori,  I.e. 

4  Martini  Ep.  2,  ad  Theod.  and  Commemoratio,  etc.     The  latter  asserts  that 
the  Pope  was  not  allowed  to  leave  the  ship.     Martin  himself,  however,  says 
(I.e.)  that  he  lodged  in  a  hospitium. 


122  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

and  the  warders  were  forbidden  to  say  who  was  there  hidden. 
He  had  to  remain  there  ninety-three  days.1  In  this  time 
falls  the  composition  of  his  second  letter  to  Theodore,  in 
which  he  complains  that  for  forty-seven  days  he  has  not  been 
allowed  to  use  either  a  cold  or  a  warm  bath,  that  he  was 
entirely  deprived  of  bodily  strength,  that  he  has  suffered  long 
from  diarrhoea,  and  been  without  ordinary  food.  What  was 
allowed  him  of  this  kind  he  had  left  off  eating  from  nausea.2 

After  ninety-three  days  he  was  placed  before  the  tribunal ; 
or,  to  be  more  exact,  he  was,  on  account  of  his  sickness,  carried 
on  a  chair,  and  the  fiscal  (Saeellarius)  had  the  cruelty  to  order 
that  he  should  stand,  which  he  was  able  to  do  only  by  sup 
porting  himself  on  two  beadles,  and  with  much  pain.  He 
now  asked  the  Pope  insolently  :  "  Say,  unhappy  man,  what  harm 
has  the  Emperor  done  you  ? "  The  Pope  was  silent,  and  the 
witnesses  against  him  were  now  called,  partly  former  subor 
dinates  of  Olympius  and  soldiers.  They  had  been  told  before 
hand  what  they  were  to  say,  and  several  were  browbeaten. 
The  first  accuser  was  Dorotheus,  a  patrician  of  Cilicia  (or 
Sicily),  who  asserted  that  Martin  had  made  common  cause  with 
Olympius  against  the  Emperor,  and  had  distracted  the  West, 
that  he  was  an  enemy  and  conspirator  against  the  Emperor. 
Another  declared :  "  He  took  part  in  the  insurrection  of 
Olympius,  and  induced  the  soldiers  to  conspire."  When 
asked  to  explain,  Martin  was  about  to  tell  how  the  matter 
was,  but  as  he  spoke  the  first  words,  "  When  the  Typus  was 
put  forth  and  sent  to  Borne,"  the  Prefect  Troilus  interrupted 
him,  and  cried :  "  You  are  not  here  to  speak  of  the  faith, 
you  are  examined  respecting  rebellion.3  .  .  .  You  saw  what 
Olympius  undertook  against  the  Emperor,  and  did  not  hinder 
him,  but  agreed  with  him."  Martin  replied :  "  And  you  did 
not  hinder  when  George  and  Yalentinus  made  insurrection 
against  the  Emperor,4  and  that  which  happened  you  and  your 

1  Commemoratio,  I.e. 

2  Martini  Ep.  2,  ad  Theol.  I.e. 

3  Duellum  =  rebellio.     See  Du  Cange,  s.v. 

4  On  the  insurrection  of  Valentinus,  in  consequence  of  which  Constans  n. 
came  to  the  throne  (sec.  301  ad  fin. ),  cf.  Nieeph.  Breviar.  de  rebus  gestis  post 
Mauricium,  p.  33  sqq.,  ed.  Bonn.     George  was  probably  a  participator  in  this 
rising. 


POPE   MARTIN   I.   BECOMES  A   MARTYR  FOR  DYOTHELITISM.      123 

companions  allowed  to  happen.  And  how  could  I  have  gone 
against  a  man  who  had  the  whole  military  power  of  Italy 
under  him  ?  Further,  I  adjure  you  by  the  Lord,  finish  quickly 
what  you  intend  with  me.  Any  kind  of  death  will  be  a 
benefit  to  me." 

There  were  several  witnesses  present,  but  they  were  not 
heard,  and  the  interpreter  was  reviled  because  he  had  trans 
lated  the  striking  words  of  the  Pope  so  accurately  into  Greek. 
Upon  this  the  president  of  the  tribunal  rose  up,  and  informed 
the  Emperor  of  what  had  happened.  The  Pope  had  been 
taken  out  into  the  public  court  as  a  spectacle  to  the  people,  and 
then  exposed  on  a  platform,  that  the  Emperor  might  see  from 
his  chamber  what  further  happened.  Many  people  stood  in 
the  neighbourhood.  The  fiscal  then  came  from  the  Emperor's 
chamber,  stepped  before  the  Pope,  and  taunted  him  with  the 
words :  "  You  have  contended  against  the  Emperor ;  what 
have  you  now  to  hope  for  ?  You  have  forsaken  God,  and 
God  has  forsaken  you  ; "  then  ordered  his  patriarchal  garments 
to  be  torn  off,1  and  transferred  him  to  the  prefect  of  the  city, 
with  the  words :  "  Have  him  immediately  hewn  in  pieces, 
limb  from  limb  " ;  and  required  all  present  to  anathematise 
him,  which,  however,  was  done  only  by  a  few.  The  execu 
tioners  deprived  him  of  his  upper  garments,  and  even  tore  his 
undermost  tunic  from  top  to  bottom  into  two  pieces,  so  that 
the  naked  body  came  through  at  many  places.  Around  his 
neck  they  hung  iron  chains,  and  thus  dragged  him,  bearing  a 
sword  before  him,  through  the  city  to  the  prsetorium.  Here 
he  was  first  imprisoned  in  company  with  murderers,  after  an 
hour  cast  into  another  prison,  that  of  Diomede,  and  with  such 
violence  that  his  legs  and  knees  were  wounded,  and  his  blood 
stuck  to  the  steps  of  the  prison.  Martin  suffered  unspeakably 
from  the  cold,  for  it  was  the  depth  of  winter ;  and  all  day  he 
was  at  the  point  of  death.  Only  a  young  cleric  was  allowed 
to  remain  with  him  as  attendant.  On  the  other  hand,  he  was 
attached  to  the  executioner's  servant,  as  was  generally  done 
with  those  who  were  to  be  put  to  death.  Two  women,  mother 
and  daughter,  who  belonged  to  the  establishment  of  the 
warders,  had  compassion  upon  him,  and  wanted  to  cover  the 

1  An  Psachnion,  cf.  Du  Cange,  s.v. 


124  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

half -naked  and  half-frozen  man ;  but  did  not  venture  to  do 
so  at  once,  on  account  of  the  governor  of  the  prison,  and 
accomplished  their  wish  only  when,  some  hours  after,  he  was 
called  away.  Until  towards  evening  the  Pope  uttered  not 
a  syllable.  The  Prefect  Gregory  now  sent  him  some  victuals, 
adding,  "  We  hope  to  God  that  you  are  not  dying."  He  sighed, 
and  now  his  iron  chains  were  taken  off.  Next  day  the  Em 
peror  visited  the  Patriarch  Paul  of  Constantinople,  now  sick 
unto  death,  and  told  him  what  had  taken  place.  The  latter 
cried  out,  "  Woe's  me !  must  this  also  come  before  God  for 
me  to  answer  for  ? "  and  adjured  the  Emperor  to  let  this 
suffice,  and  no  further  to  punish  the  Pope.  When  Martin 
heard  this,  he  was  sorry,  for  he  hoped  for  death.  Soon  after 
wards  the  Patriarch  Paul  died,  and  Pyrrhus  forced  himself  in 
again.  As  many  were  discontented  with  this,  the  Emperor 
sent  an  officer  of  the  palace,  by  name  Demosthenes,  into  the 
prison  to  the  Pope,  to  ask  what  had  taken  place  in  Eome  with 
regard  to  Pyrrhus.  The  Pope  informed  him  that  Pyrrhus 
had,  of  his  own  accord,  and  under  no  constraint,  come  to 
Eome,  and  had  voluntarily  presented  his  declaration  of  faith ; 
that  Pope  Theodore  received  him  as  bishop,  because,  before 
his  arrival,  Paul,  who  had  been  intruded  into  his  see,  had  not 
been  recognised,  and  that  Pyrrhus  received  his  maintenance 
from  the  Eoman  patriarcheion.  Demosthenes  professed  to 
know  that  Pyrrhus  had  not  acted  freely,  and  had  suffered 
imprisonment  in  Eome.  The  Pope  appealed  to  witnesses,  who 
were  then  in  Eome  and  now  in  Constantinople,  and  added, 
"  Do  with  me  what  you  will,  let  me  be  hewn  in  pieces,  as  you 
commanded.  With  the  Church  of  Constantinople  I  will  not 
come  into  communion." 

Martin  remained  in  the  prison  of  Diomede  for  eighty- five 
days,  and  during  that  time  took  a  dignified  and  touching  fare 
well  of  the  friends  who  visited  him,  was  imprisoned  two  days 
longer  in  the  house  of  the  secretary,  Sagoleba  (above,  Sagoleva), 
and  then  was  privately  conveyed  (March  26,  655)  on  a  ship  to 
Cherson.1  Here  also  he  endured  much  hardship,  even  to  want 
of  bread,  and  died,  September  1 6  of  the  same  year,  with  the 

1  In  the  rock  grottoes  of  Inkerman,  on  the  Black  Sea,  in  the  Crimea,  there 
is  still  shown  the  cavern  where  Pope  Martin  lived. 


POPE  MARTIN  I.   BECOMES  A  MARTYR  FOR   DYOTHELITISM.      125 

glory  of  a  martyr,1  and  was  interred  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  city  of  Cherson,  in  the  church  of  the  Holy  Virgin  of 
Blachernse.2  We  still  possess  two  of  his  letters  which  he 
wrote  from  Cherson  shortly  before  his  death,3  and  in  which  he 
describes  the  great  need  in  which  he  finds  himself.  He  com 
plains  also  that  his  friends,  and  especially  the  Roman  clergy, 
have  quite  forgotten  him,  and  had  sent  no  provision  for  his 
maintenance,  not  even  in  corn  and  wine,  which  the  Eoman 
Church  possessed  in  abundance.  Finally,  at  the  close  of  his 
last  letter,  he  earnestly  commends  the  Eoman  Church,  and 
especially  its  present  pastor  (pastorem  qui  eis  nunc  prceesse 
monstratur),  to  the  divine  protection.  Along  with  this  he 
gave,  in  addition,  his  approval  to  what  had  taken  place  in 
Borne.  When  Martin  was  removed,  the  imperial  exarch 
demanded  that  another  Pope  should  be  elected,  but  the 
Eoman  clergy  opposed  this  request ;  and  Martin  wrote  from 
Constantinople  towards  the  end  of  the  year  654,  that  he 
hoped  this  would  never  be  done,  as,  in  the  absence  of  the  Pope, 
the  archdeacon,  archpresbyter,  and  primicerius  4  were  his  legal 
representatives.  At  the  time  when  he  wrote  this,  however, 
the  Eoman  clergy  had  already  (September  8,  654)  elected 
Eugenius  i.,  an  able  and  orthodox  man  of  a  distinguished 
Eoman  family ;  and  this  step  they  took,  after  more  than  a 
year's  resistance,  from  the  fear  that  the  Emperor  would  other 
wise  place  a  Monothelite  on  the  see.  Baronius  (ad  ann.  652, 
n.  11,  and  654,  n.  6)  thought  that,  until  the  death  of  Martin, 
Eugenius  had  only  acted  as  his  vicar.  This  assumption  was 
opposed  by  Pagi  (ad  ann.  654,  n.  4),  who  shows  that  even  in 

1  The  Greeks  venerate  him  as  a  confessor  on  the  llth  of  April.     We  [R.  C.] 
as  a  martyr,  November  12.     What  Bower  objects  (vol.  iv.) — that  Martin  did  not 
suffer  so  much  for  the  faith,  but  for  disobedience — is  ridiculous,  as  Bower  him 
self  declares  the  accusation  of  treason  to  be  false,  and  by  his  disobedience  under 
stands  only  resistance  to  the  Typus. 

2  In  the  northern  suburb  of  Constantinople,  Blachernne,  the  Empress  Pul- 
cheria  had  built  a  church  of  S.  Mary,   which  was  the  most  celebrated  of  Con 
stantinople  ;  and  after  which  churches  were  erected  in  or  before  other  cities  to 
the  Holy  Virgin  [our  Lady]  of  Blachernse.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  654,  n.  3,  and 
Nice  ph.     Callisti  Hist.  Ecd.  lib.  xv.  c.  24.     Commemoratio,  etc.,  in  Mansi.  I.e. 
pp.  855-861  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  680  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  861  sq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  686  sq. 
*  See  Dictionary  of  Christian  Antiquities,  s.v. 


126  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

the  Eoman  archives  the  years  of  Eugenius  are  numbered  from 
September  8,  654,  and  not  from  the  death  of  Martin.  Even 
if  this  is  correct,  yet  only  from  the  death  of  Martin  can 
Eugenius  be  regarded  as  fully  legitimate  Pope. 

SEC.  310.  Abbot  Maximus  and  his  Disciples  become  Martyrs. 
The  Doctrine  of  Three  Wills. 

Besides  Pope  Martin,  there  were  other  bishops  of  the 
West,  who  had  taken  part  in  the  Lateran  Synod,  who  were 
severely  punished ; 1  but  Abbot  Maximus  and  his  disciples 
were  the  objects  of  special  cruelty  (see  above,  sec.  303).  On 
this  subject  we  possess  copious  sources  of  information  in  the 
Acts  on  the  trial  of  Maximus  in  his  own  letters,  and  in  those 
of  his  disciples,  and  in  the  minutes  of  disputation  between 
him  and  Bishop  Theodosius  of  Cresarea.2  We  also  hear  of  it 
from  the  old  historians  and  the  Vita  S.  Maximi.  We  learn 
from  hence  that  Abbot  Maximus,  with  two  disciples,  who 
both  bore  the  name  of  Anastasius,  and  of  whom  the  one  was 
a  monk,  the  other  a  representative  of  the  Koman  Church, 
was  brought  from  Eome  to  Constantinople  at  the  imperial 
command  at  the  same  time  as  Pope  Martin,  i.e.  A.D.  653.  J. 
C.  Assernani  professes  to  show 3  that  he  had  arrived  there  in 
653,  and  thus  before  Pope  Martin,  but  it  is  certain  only  that 
the  examination  with  respect  to  Maximus  and  his  friends  did 
not  begin  until  the  year  655,  after  the  judgment  on  Pope 
Martin  had  already  been  given.4  The  imperial  Sacellarius 
(fiscal)  reproached  him  with  hatred  against  the  Emperor, 
adding,  it  was  his  fault  that  Egypt,  Alexandria,  Pentapolis, 

1  Theophanes,  Chronogr.,  ad  ann.  621  (where  later  events  of  many  kinds  in 
relation  to  the  Monothelite  history  are  compressed),  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  510. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  3  sqq.     More  completely  in  Galland.  Bibl.  Pair.  t.  xiii. 
pp.  50-78  ;  and  S.  Maximi  Opp.,  ed.  Combefis,  t.  i.  pp.  xxix.-lxx. 

3  Italics  histories  Scriptores,  t.  ii.  p.  149. 

4  Pagi  (ad  ann.  657,   8)  showed  quite  correctly  that  the  examination  on 
Maximus  took  place  in  655,  but  he  concluded  too  hastily  that  the  arrival  of  Maxi 
mus  at  Constantinople  must  also  be  transferred  to  this  year,  655.     The  Acts  of 
the  trial  certainly  say  (in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  3)  post  dies  aliquot  after  the  arrival 
in  Constantinople,  Maximus  was  placed  upon  trial ;  but  elsewhere  they  bring 
together  events  separated  in -time,  and  in  doing  so  make  use  of  such  vague  expres 
sions  as  post  dies  aliquot.     A  striking  example  will  meet  us  soon. 


ABBOT  MAXIMUS  AND   HIS   DISCIPLES   BECOME  MARTYRS.      127 

and  Africa  had  been  seized  by  the  Saracens.      The  witness 
John  said  also  that,  twenty  years  ago,  when   the   Emperor 
Heraclius  had  recommended  the  Prefect  Peter  of  Numidia  to 
march  against  the  Saracens  with  the  army  in  Egypt,  Maxi- 
mus  had  counselled  the  prefect  not  to  do  so,  because  God  did 
not  support  the  government  of  Heraclius  (on  account  of  his 
Monothelitism).     Maximus  declared   this  to  be  a  falsehood ; 
and   so   also   the    assertion   of    the    second   witness,   Sergius 
Maguda,  that  Pope  Theodore,  nine  years  ago,  had  conveyed 
to  the  patrician  Gregory  that  he  should  venture  upon  the 
insurrection  courageously,  for  Maximus  had  seen  in  a  dream 
angels    who    cried :     "  Emperor    Gregory,   thou    conquerest." 
Another  witness,  Gregory,  the  son  of  Photinus,  distorted  an 
expression  which  Maximus,  during   his   residence  in   Borne, 
had  uttered  in  opposition  to  him,  namely,  that  the  Emperor 
was  not  also  a  priest.     Maximus  was   then   taken   out,  and 
one  of  his  disciples  was  asked  whether  Maximus  had  treated 
Pyrrhus  badly  (sec.  303).     As  he  did  not  speak  against  his 
master,  he  was  beaten  and  taken  away  with  the  other  scholar. 
The  Abbot  Mennas  then,  in  presence  of  the   Senate,  brought 
against  Maximus  (Maximus  must  now  have  been  brought  back 
to  the  hall  of  judgment)  the  further  accusation,  that  he  had 
misled  the  people  into  Origenism.     Maximus  rejected  this  with 
an  anathema  on  Origen,  and  thereupon  was  sent  back  to  prison. 
On  the  same  day,  towards  evening,  the  patrician  Troilus  and 
the  imperial  table-officer  Sergius  Eucratas  came  to  Maximus, 
in  order  to  interrogate  him  respecting  the  doctrinal  discussions 
which  he  had  in  Africa  and  in  Eome  with  Pyrrhus.     Maximus 
gave  them  complete  information,  and  concluded  with  the  words  : 
"  I  have  no  doctrine  of  my  own,  but  am  in  agreement  with 
the   Catholic   Church."       On   being  further   interrogated,  he 
added :    "  With    the   Church   of    Constantinople,   however,   I 
cannot  agree,  because  it  has  infringed  on  the  four  (Ecumenical 
Synods  by  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus."     They  answered  him  : 
"  But    the    Komans   now   agree   with    Constantinople.       The 
Itoman   deputies  came   here  yesterday,  and   to-morrow  they 
will  communicate  with  the  Patriarch."     As  a  matter  of  fact, 
the  deputies  whom  Pope  Eugenius  I.  had  sent  to  the  Court  of 
Constantinople  had  shown   themselves  disposed  to  enter  into 


128  HISTOKY  OF   THE  COUNCILS. 

communion  with  the  Patriarch  there,  on  condition  that  in 
Christ  a  hypostatic  and  two  natural  wills  should  be  recog 
nised,  i.e.,  considering  Him  as  a  person,  we  should  speak  of 
only  one  will,  but  if  we  have  the  two  natures  in  view,  we 
should  ascribe  a  proper  will  to  each  of  them.  This  middle 
way  had  been  invented  by  Peter,  a  clergyman  of  Constan 
tinople,  and  recommended  for  acceptance  to  the  Patriarch 
Pyrrhus,  but  also  the  Eoman  deputies  agreed  to  this.  When, 
however,  Abbot  Maximus  heard  of  this,  he  refused  to  believe 
in  it,  and  remarked :  "  Even  if  the  Eoman  envoys  do  so,  they 
yet  do  not  prejudice  the  Eoman  see,  because  they  have  brought 
with  them  no  letter  from  the  Pope  to  the  Patriarch  (but  only 
to  the  Emperor)."  The  reproach  that  he  was  insulting  the 
Emperor,  because  he  spoke  against  the  Typus,  etc.,  Maximus 
put  away  from  him  with  great  testimony  of  humility,  saying 
that,  above  all  things,  he  could  not  insult  God,  and  he 
answered  the  question,  Whether  the  anathema  on  the  Typus 
was  not  an  anathema  on  the  Emperor  himself  ?  by  the 
remark  that  the  Emperor  was  merely  misguided  by  the 
rulers  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  and  he  might 
now  do  as  Heraclius  did,  who,  in  a  letter  to  Pope  John, 
declared  that  not  he,  but  Sergius,  was  the  author  of  the 
Ecthesis,  and  renounced  it  (sec.  299).  Thus  ended  the  first 
examination. 

Some  days  afterwards  occurred  something  not  mentioned 
in  the  Acts  of  the  trial,  but  by  Maximus  himself  in  the  letter 
to  his  disciple,  the  monk  Anastasius,  namely,  on  the  18th, 
the  Feast  of  the  Media  Pentacostes,  the  Patriarch  caused  it  to 
be  said  to  him :  "  The  churches  of  Constantinople,  Eome, 
Antioch,  Alexandria,  and  Jerusalem  are  now  united  ;  if  you 
wish,  then,  to  be  a  Catholic,  you  must  unite  with  them."  On 
nearer  interrogation,  the  deputies  of  the  Patriarch  remarked 
that  all  the  united  churches  now  confessed  two  operations  on 
account  of  the  difference  (of  the  natures),  and  one  operation 
on  account  of  the  unity  (of  the  Person).  When  Maximus 
refused  to.  accede  to  this  doctrine,  the  deputies  replied :  "  The 
Emperor  and  the  Patriarch  have  resolved,  in  accordance  with 
the  papal  decision  (per  prceceptum  Papce),  to  punish  you  with 
anathema  and  with  death  if  you  do  not  obey."  Maximus 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS  AND   HIS   DISCIPLES   BECOME   MARTYRS.      129 

still  remained  steadfast.1  Pagi  (ad  ann.  657,  n.  6,  7)  showed 
that  by  media  Pentacostes  was  meant  the  middle  day  be 
tween  Easter  and  Pentecost,  which  in  the  year  655  fell  on 
the  22nd  of  April.  Therefore,  in  the  letter  of  Maximus, 
instead  of  18,  we  must  read  the  22nd  day  of  the  month. 
This  transaction  was  also  placed  by  Pagi  after  the  first 
examination.  This  was  contested  by  Assemani,  who  thought 
that  it  went  before  it,  because,  on  the  22nd  of  April  655, 
Pyrrhus  still  occupied  the  see  of  Constantinople  (he  died  in 
June  or  July  655);  but  in  the  Acts  of  the  Examination 
he  is  spoken  of  as  dead  in  the  words  of  a  cleric  to  Maxi 
mus  :  Tibi  reddidit  Deus  qiicecunque  fecisti  BEATO  Pyrrlw? 
Assemani  here  overlooks  the  fact  that  at  the  time  of  the 
transaction  on  April  22,  the  union  of  the  Eoman  deputies 
with  the  Church  of  Constantinople  must  have  been  already 
concluded ;  for  it  was  often  appealed  to.  It  is  also  incorrect 
to  say  that  jjLa/cdpios  (Jbeatus)  is  used  only  of  the  dead.  Living 
bishops  were  also  thus  entitled  (cf.  below,  sec.  314).  But 
even  if  we  were  willing  to  grant  that  the  ra>  pa/cap iu> 
Hvppa)  referred  to  his  death  as  having  taken  place,  yet  it  is 
not  necessary  that  we  should  agree  with  Assemani  and 
place  the  transaction  on  April  2  2  before  the  first  examination 
of  S.  Maximus,  for  the  Acts  of  Examination  plainly  fall  into 
two  parts.  The  first  part,  from  which  we  have  already  made 
extracts,  in  no  way  speaks  of  Pyrrhus  as  of  one  who  is  dead, 
but  refers  to  him  repeatedly  with  the  addition  of  beatus, 
naturally  because  Pyrrhus  had  then,  after  the  death  of 
Paul,  been  again  restored  to  the  patriarchal  see.  Only  in  the 
second  part  of  the  minutes  of  the  trial  can  the  pa/capias 
refer  to  Pyrrhus  as  already  dead,  and  this  second  part 
begins  with  the  words :  Et  rursus  alio  sabbato.  Between  this 
aliud  sdbbatum  and  that  which  had  gone  before  several 
months  may  have  elapsed,  just  as  between  the  arrival  of 
Maximus  in  Constantinople  and  his  first  examination,  whilst 
the  Acts,  as  we  have  already  remarked,  give  all  these  events 
in  near  connection. 

After  the  Eoman  deputies  had  been  fooled  by  Byzantine 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  11 ;  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  p.  xli. 

2  Assemani,  I.e.  p.  143. 
y.— 9 


130  HISTOKY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

cunning,  they  were  sent  back  to  their  home,  with  a  letter  to 
the  Pope,  in  order  to  gain  him  also  for  the  doctrine  of  the 
three  wills.  So  we  are  informed  by  the  monk  Athanasius  in 
his  letter  to  the  monks  of  Cagliari  in  Sardinia,  in  which  he 
requests  them  to  go  immediately  to  Eome  and  encourage  the 
good  and  steadfast  Christians  there  to  oppose  the  new  heresy.1 
The  letters  which  had  been  communicated  to  the  papal 
deputies  had  not  been  drawn  up  by  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus, 
but  by  his  successor,  Peter.  That  the  latter  addressed  a 
letter  to  Pope  Eugenius  is  stated  by  the  Vitce  Pontificum  of 
Anastasius,2  with  the  remark,  that  he  expressed  himself  very 
obscurely,  and  that  on  the  operations  and  energies  in  Christ  he 
gave  no  explanation.3  We  are  told  that  the  people  and  clergy 
of  Kome  were  greatly  provoked  by  this,  and  the  people  would 
not  allow  divine  service  to  be  held  in  the  chief  church  of 
S.  Mary,  at  the  manger,  nor  suffer  the  Pope  to  leave  the 
church  until  he  promised  to  condemn  that  letter.  The  same 
fate  may  have  befallen  also  the  letters  given  to  the  deputies ; 
indeed,  it  is  probable  that  the  incident  just  mentioned  had 
reference  to  them  as  well  as  to  the  letter  of  the  Patriarch 
Peter.  That  Pope  Eugenius  defended  himself  well,  a  passage 
(p.  134)  from  the  transactions  of  Bishop  Theodosius  with 
Maximus  will  show. 

In  the  meantime  another  examination  had  been  held  in 
Constantinople  with  Maximus  and  his  scholars  (alio  sdblato), 
in  the  summer  of  the  year  655,  after  the  death  of  Pyrrhus. 
First,  one  of  the  scholars  was  led  into  the  palace  of  judgment, 
where  also  the  two  Patriarchs,  Peter  of  Constantinople  and 
Macedonius  of  Antioch  (see  sec.  308),  were  present.  Con- 
stantine  and  Abbot  Mennas  appeared  again  as  accusers ;  but 
the  disciple  of  Maximus  objected  to  the  former,  because  he 
was  neither  monk  nor  cleric,  but  an  actor  and  the  keeper  of 
a  brothel.  At  the  same  time  he  confessed  publicly  that  he 
anathematised  the  Typus,  and  had  even  written  a  book 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  12  ;  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  p.  xliii. ;  Galland.  I.e.  p.  59. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1. 

3  In  a  subsequent  letter  to  Pope  Vital ian  the  Patriarch  Peter  expressed  him 
self  more  clearly.     We  know  that  in  this  he  approved  both  expressions, — one 
will  and  two  wills,  one  and  two  energies.     Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  275  ;  Hardouin,  t. 
iii.  p.  1107. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS   DISCIPLES   BECOME   MARTYRS.       131 

against  it.  Maximus  himself  was  now  brought  in,  and 
Troilus  spoke  to  him  thus :  "  Speak  the  truth,  and  the 
Emperor  will  have  compassion  upon  you.  If,  however,  it 
comes  to  a  judicial  examination,  and  only  one  accusation  is 
proved  to  be  well  grounded,  the  law  condemns  you  to  death." 
Maximus  declared  most  decidedly  that  all  the  other  accusa 
tions  were  lies,  only  one  was  well  founded,  that  he  had 
anathematised  the  Typus,  and  indeed  often.  Troilus 
remarked :  "  If  you  have  spoken  anathemas  on  the  Typus, 
then  you  have  done  so  on  the  Emperor."  Maximus  replied  : 
"  No,  not  on  the  Emperor ;  but  only  on  a  document  which  did 
not  proceed  from  him."  After  some  other  questions  had  been 
proposed  to  him,  why  he  loved  the  Latins  and  hated  the 
Greeks,  etc.,  a  cleric  shouted  to  him  the  words  already  men 
tioned  :  Retribuit  tibi  Deiis,  qucecunque  fecisti  beato  Pyrrho. 
When  the  discussion  on  the  Lateran  Synod  came  up,  it 
was  asserted  that  it  had  no  authority,  because  one  who  was 
deposed  (Pope  Martin)  had  assembled  it ;  this  was  contested 
by  Maximus,  and  he  was  thereupon  sent  back  to  prison. 
The  two  Patriarchs  had  not  spoken  a  word  during  the  whole 
transaction. 

On  the  following  day,  which  was  Sunday,  they  held  a 
Synod  (crvvobos  evfyfjiovo-a),  and  gave  the  Emperor  (as  decree 
of  the  Synod)  the  advice,  that  he  should  send  Maximus 
and  his  disciples  into  a  severe  exile,  each  one  to  a  different 
place.1  Maximus  was  banished  to  Byzia  in  Thrace.  Of  his 
disciples,  the  one  was  banished  to  Perberis,  the  other  to 
Mesembria,  in  great  misery,  almost  without  clothing  or 
food.2 

1  Assemani  (I.e.  p.  153  sq.)  and  Walch  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  308)  thought 
that  this  Synod  put  forth  that  which  is  given  at  the  close  of  the  Disputatio 
Maximi  cum  Theodosio,  in  the  edition  of  Combefis,  I.e.   p.  Ixv.  (printed  also 
in  Galland.  I.e.  p.  74,  and  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  74),  but  not  in  the  Collectanea  of 
Anastasius,  from   Exinde  adductis,  etc. ,  namely,  that  the  Synod  had  decreed 
that  Maximus  and  his  two  disciples  should  be  flogged  and  their  tongues  cut 
out,  and  their  right  hands  chopped  off ;  and  that  this  sentence,  however,  was 
not  actually  carried  out  until  afterwards.     Mansi  and  others,  however,  rightly 
saw  that  this  shocking  decree  belongs  to  another  and  somewhat  later  Synod  at 
Constantinople  (see  below,  at  the  end  of  this  section). 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  10;  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  pp.  xl.  and  Ixiii. ;  Galland.  I.e. 
pp.  58,  73. 


132  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

On  August  24,  656,1  Bishop  Theodosius  of  Csesarea  came 
into  Bithynia  as  envoy  of  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
with  two  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Emperor,  to  Byzia,  in  order 
to  confer  anew  with  Abbot  Maximus.  We  still  possess  the 
Acts  of  this  conference.2  The  way  and  manner  in  which 
Bishop  Theodosius  made  inquiries  for  the  discovery  of  Maxi 
mus  gave  occasion  for  the  latter  first  to  speak  of  divine 
prescience  and  predestination :  that  the  former  had  relation 
to  our  free  acts  of  virtues  and  vices ;  predestination  to  these 
things  quoe  non  sunt  in  nobis,  to  our  destinies  (!).  After  he  had 
ended,  Theodosius  asked  him,  by  commission  from  the  Emperor 
and  the  Patriarch,  why  he  would  hold  no  Church  communion 
with  the  see  of  Constantinople.  Maximus  pointed  out  that  what 
had  happened  since  the  chapters  of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria, 
particularly  the  Ecthesis  and  the  Typus,  had  made  such  com 
munion  impossible  to  him,  since  the  assertion  of  one  energy 
and  one  will  was  in  opposition  to  the  genuine  doctrine  of 
Theology  and  Economy  (Trinity  and  Incarnation),  and  the 
Typus  forbade  what  the  Apostles  and  Fathers  had  taught. 
Theodosius  gave  the  assurance  that  the  Emperor  would  with 
draw  the  Typus  if  Maximus  would  come  into  union  with  the 
Church  of  Constantinople ;  but  the  latter  demanded  still 
further  the  acceptance  of  the  decrees  of  the  Lateran  Council, 
and  would  not  allow  the  objection  that  this  Synod  was  not 
valid  because  it  was  held  without  the  assent  of  the  Emperor. 

To  the  question,  why  he  did  not  recognise  the  letter  of 
Mennas  (see  sec.  303,  and  vol.  iv.  p.  290),  Maximus  alleged 
only  its  heretical  character,  without  asserting  its  spuriousness  ; 
but  the  other  patristic  testimonies,  which  Theodosius  brought 
forward  on  behalf  of  Monothelitism,  he  declared  to  be 
spurious,  saying  that  these  were  passages  from  Apollinaris, 
Nestorius,  etc.,  and  had  been  falsely  ascribed  to  Athanasius 
and  Chrysostom.  At  another  passage,  supposed  to  be  taken 
from  Cyril  (see  sec.  291),  Theodosius  would  not  allow 
Maximus  to  interpret  it,  and  maintained  that  one  hypostatic 
energy  in  Christ  must  be  recognised.  Maximus  pointed  out  to 

1  This  date  appears  from  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  p.    xliv.      Cf.  with  p.   lix. 
and  Galland.  I.e.  pp.  61,  70. 

2  In  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  p.  xliv.  sqq.,  and  in  Galland.  I.e.  p.  61  sqq. 


ABBOT   MAXIMUS   AND   HIS    DISCIPLES   BECOME   MARTYRS.       133 

what  errors  this  would  lead,  and  that,  along  with  two  natures, 
it  was  necessary  also  to  teach  two  natural  wills  and  energies. 
The  objection,  that  by  this  means  a  conflict  was  made  in 
Christ,  he  refuted,  and  proved  from  the  Acts  of  the  Lateran 
Synod,  that  even  the  ancient  Fathers  had  spoken  of  two  wills 
and  operations  in  Christ.  Theodosius  proposed  :  If  that  were 
so,  he  would  draw  up  a  written  acknowledgment  of  the  two 
natures,  wills,  and  energies,  if  in  that  case  Maximus  would 
come  into  church  communion  (with  him  and  the  see  of 
Constantinople).  The  latter  replied :  It  was  not  his  place, 
as  a  mere  abbot,  to  receive  such  a  written  acknowledgment ; 
the  ecclesiastical  rule  required  that  the  Emperor  and  the 
Patriarch,  with  his  Synod,  should  apply  with  this  to  the 
Eoman  Bishop.  Theodosius  then  went  in  and  requested 
Maximus  that,  in  case  he  were  sent  as  envoy  of  Constanti 
nople  to  Eome,  Maximus  would  accompany  him  there. 
Maximus  promised  this,  and  all  present  wept  for  joy,  and 
thanked  God  on  their  knees  for  the  hope  of  peace.  Immedi 
ately  afterwards  Theodosius  asked  whether  Maximus  would 
accept,  in  no  manner  whatever,  the  expression  "  one  will  and 
one  energy ; "  and  Maximus  explained  to  him  in  six  points 
the  entire  inadmissibleness  of  the  expression.  As,  however, 
Theodosius  had  thought  that  the  union  of  the  two  natures  had 
necessarily,  as  a  consequence,  the  unity  of  the  will,  Maximus 
also  unfolded  the  doctrine  of  the  Communicatio  idiomatum,  and 
showed  that  will  and  energy  belong  to  the  nature  and  not  to 
the  person.  Thereupon  the  deputies  of  the  Emperor  departed, 
with  the  hope  that  they  would  be  able  to  determine  their 
master  to  arrange  for  an  embassy  to  Kome,  and  left  behind 
them  some  money  and  clothes  for  Maximus. 

On  September  8,  656,1  by  command  of  the  Emperor,  he 
was  conveyed  to  the  monastery  of  S.  Theodore  at  Ehegium, 
and  by  the  commission  of  the  Emperor  there  came  again  to 
him  the  patricians  Epiphanius  and  Troilus,  together  with  the 
Bishop  Theodosius,  to  notify  him  that  the  Emperor  offered 
him  a  most  solemn  reception  in  Constantinople  if  he  would 
unite  with  him  on  the  Typus,  and  would  receive  with  him 
the  sacred  Synaxis  (communion).  Maximus  reproached 

1  Not  661,  as  Walch,  I.e.  S.  308,  thought.     Of.  Assemani,  I.e.  pp.  154,  155. 


134  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Bishop  Theodosius,  that  the  assurances  given  to  him  in  Byzia 
had  not  been  fulfilled,  and  answered  naturally  declining  the 
imperial  suggestion.  For  this  those  present  struck  him,  ill- 
treated  him  and  reviled  him,  only  Bishop  Theodosius  offered 
him  protection.  The  renewed  attempt  to  bring  forward  the 
Typus  as  a  means  of  peace  was  rejected  by  Maximus,  with 
the  remark  that  silence  with  regard  to  the  truth  was  not  the 
restoration  of  true  peace.  Threats  could  not  intimidate  him. 
Next  day,  on  the  Feast  of  the  Elevation  of  the  Cross 
(September  14,  656),  he  was  conveyed  to  Salembria,  and 
told  that,  if  they  had  some  repose  from  the  barbarians,  they 
would  deal  with  the  Pope,  who  now  also  showed  himself 
obstinate,  and  with  all  the  spokesmen  of  the  West,  as  well  as 
with  the  disciples  of  Maximus,  just  as  they  had  dealt  with  Pope 
Martin.  We  see  from  this  that  Pope  Eugenius  had  rejected 
the  union  of  his  envoys.  During  his  residence  in  Salembria, 
Maximus  defended  himself,  in  controversy  with  the  military 
there,  against  the  false  accusation  that  he  denied  the 
OeoroKos,  and  won  over  many  minds  by  his  devout  and 
powerful  discourse.  His  wardens  therefore  removed  him 
again  as  soon  as  possible,  and  brought  him  to  Perberis,  where 
one  of  his  disciples  was  already  in  exile.  How  long  Maximus 
remained  here  is  unknown.  The  ancients  reckoned  his 
residence  there  as  a  second  exile. 

With  these  statements  the  text  ends,  as  it  is  found  in 
the  Collectanea  of  Anastasius.  Combefis,  however,  discovered 
the  appendix  already  mentioned  (p.  131,  n.  1),  which  relates 
that  Maximus  and  his  disciples  were  subsequently  brought  to 
Constantinople,  and  anathematised,  along  with  Pope  Martin, 
Sophronius,  and  all  the  orthodox,  by  a  new  Synod  held  there. 
Maximus  and  his  two  disciples  were  then  handed  over  to  the 
prefect,  with  the  instruction  to  flog  them,  to  cut  out  their 
blasphemous  tongues  from  the  roots,  and  to  chop  off  their 
right  hands.  Thus  mutilated,  they  were  to  be  taken  round 
through  all  the  twelve  parts  of  the  city,  and  then  they  were 
to  be  banished  and  imprisoned  for  life.  The  prefect  accom 
plished  this,  and  they  were  banished  for  the  third  time  to 
Lazica  (in  Colchis  on  the  Pontus  Euxinus).1  A  letter  which 

1  S.  Maximi  Opp.  I.e.  p.  Ixvi. ;  Galland.  I.e.  p.  74  ;  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  74. 


POPE   VITALIAN.  135 

one  of  them,  the  Deputy  Anastasius,  addressed  from  Lazica  to 
the  priest  Theodosius,  gives  the  information  that  they  had 
arrived  there  on  June  8  of  the  fifth  Indie tion  (i.e.  A.D.  662) ; 
had  been  immediately  separated  from  one  another,  robbed  of 
their  property,  and  disgracefully  treated.  Maximus  was 
first  imprisoned  in  the  fort  Schemarum,  and  the  two  disciples 
in  the  forts  Scotonum  and  Buculus.  After  a  few  days,  these, 
although  half  dead,  were  dragged  farther,  and  one  of  them, 
the  monk  Anastasius,  died  on  the  24th  of  July  662,  either 
on  the  way  to  the  fort  Sunias  or  immediately  after  his  arrival 
there.  His  companion,  the  deputy  Anastasius,  could  not 
accurately  learn,  for  they  had  been  separated  from  one  another 
on  the  18th  of  July  662.  Maximus  died  at  Schemarum,  as  he 
had  foretold,  August  13,  662.1  Much  longer  did  the  suffer 
ings  of  the  deputy  Anastasius  last.  He  describes  them 
himself  in  the  letter  referred  to.  He  also  died  in  exile, 
October  11,  666.2 

SEC.   311.  Pope  Vitalian. 

In  the  meantime  Pope  Eugenius  I.  died  in  Eome,  and 
Vitalian  succeeded  him,  A.D.  657.  He  immediately  sent 
delegates  with  a  synodal  letter  to  Constantinople,  in  order  to 
give  information  of  his  elevation.  It  was  received  in  a 
friendly  manner,  the  privileges  of  the  Eoman  Church  were 
renewed,  and  the  Emperor  sent  to  S.  Peter's  golden  books  of 
the  Gospels,  which  had  been  set  round  with  precious  stones 
of  marvellous  size.  So  it  is  related  by  the  Vitce  Pontificum 
of  Anastasius.3  From  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  it  appears  4  that  Vitalian  then  also  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  Patriarch  Peter  of  Constantinople,  and  that  the  latter 
had  inferrrd  from  it  their  unanimity.  We  see  that  Vitalian 
was  on  his  guard,  in  his  synodal  letter,  against  expressly 
rejecting  the  Typus  of  the  Emperor.  The  Emperor  Cons  tans, 

1  He  was  therefore  only  three  months  in  his  third  exile,  so  that  several 
ancient  testimonies  which  speak  of  three  years  must   be  corrected  from  this. 
Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  p.  159. 

2  Cf.  the  appendix  to  his  letter  mentioned,  and  Pagi,  ad  ann.  660,  4. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  14. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  572  ;  Hardouin,  t.  Hi.  p.  1347. 


136  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

however,  put  on  the  appearance  as  if  he  himself  were  quite 
orthodox,  and  at  the  same  time  those  presents  were  likely  to 
propitiate  the  Koman  people,  who  had  been  disaffected  to  the 
Emperor  since  the  times  of  Martin  I.1  The  mutual  dissimu 
lation  produced,  as  a  fact,  the  restoration  of  Church  com 
munion  between  Kome  and  Constantinople.  Vitalian's  name 
was  inscribed  on  the  diptychs  of  Constantinople,2  which,  until 
now,  had  happened  to  none  of  the  Popes  since  Honorius ;  and 
when  the  Emperor  Constans  came  to  Kome  in  July  663,  he 
was  not  only  received  in  the  most  ceremonious  manner,  but  also 
the  presents  which  he  made  to  several  churches,  were  accepted 
without  hesitation,  and  himself  treated  completely  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  orthodox  Church.  The  Pope  was  so  friendly  that 
he  said  nothing  even  when  the  Emperor  took  away  many 
Church  treasures,  among  them  the  brazen  roof  of  the  Church 
of  S.  Maria  ad  martyres,  i.e.  Maria  Rotunda  (the  Pantheon) 
From  thence  the  Emperor  proceeded  to  Syracuse,  where  he 
resided,  because  Constantinople  was  hostile  to  him,  until,  in 
the  year  668,  hated  for  his  numerous  extortions,  he  was 
treacherously  murdered  in  his  bath.3  To  him  succeeded,  after 
the  overthrow  of  the  usurper  Mesecius,  his  son  Constantine 
Pogonatus,  so  called  because  he  had  left  Constantinople  with 
his  father  unbearded,  and  now  returned  thither  as  Emperor 
with  a  strong  beard. 

1  Baron,  ad  ann.  655,  1-5. 

2Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  199,  346  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1047,  1163. 
3  Anastasii  Vit&  Pontif.  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  14  sq.     Pagi,  ad  ann.  663,  2,  3 ; 
668,  3. 


CHAPTER     II. 

THE    SIXTH    OECUMENICAL    SYNOD. 

SEC.   312.   The  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus  wishes  for  a 
Great  Conference  of  Easterns  and  Westerns. 

WITH  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  the  Emperor 
Constantine  Pogonatus  there  commences  a  turning- 
point  in  the  history  of  Monothelitism.  The  new  Emperor 
had  no  intention  of  sustaining  the  Typus  of  his  father  by 
force,  and  this  encouraged  Pope  Vitalian  to  break  his  previous 
silence  and  publicly  to  make  a  stand  for  orthodoxy.  That  he 
did  so  we  see  from  this,  that  the  Monothelites  at  Constanti 
nople,  after  his  death,  took  the  trouble  to  remove  his  name 
again  from  the  diptychs.1  Vitalian  died  in  January  672, 
and  after  Adeodatus  had  reigned,  without  any  remarkable  inci 
dents,  for  four  years,2  under  his  successor,  Donus  or  Domnus 
(676—678),  the  Emperor  came  forward  with  the  plan  of 
restoring  again  the  broken  peace  of  the  Church  by  an 
assembly  of  the  East  and  the  West.  Leisure  for  this  work 
of  union  was  given  to  him  by  the  advantageous  peace  which, 
in  the  year  678,  he  had  concluded  with  the  Calif  Muavia, 
and  immediately  afterwards  with  the  King  of  the  Avari  (in 
Hungary).  That  he  at  that  time  regarded  himself  as  com 
pletely  orthodox  and  a  decided  friend  of  Dyothelitism,  cannot 
be  proved.  On  the  contrary,  at  that  time  he  professed  to 
belong  to  neither  of  the  parties,  and  even  allowed  himself  to 
be  misguided  to  several  false  steps  by  the  Monothelites. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  199,  346  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1047,  1163. 

2  That  under  him  the  separation  between  Rome  and  Constantinople  con 
tinued  is  evident  from  this,  that  his  name  and  that  of  his  successor  were  not 
placed  upon  the  Greek  diptychs. 

137 


138  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

In  Constantinople,  Bishop  Peter,  whose  acquaintance  we 
have  already  made,  was  followed  by  the  Patriarchs  Thomas, 
John,  and  Constantine,  in  respect  to  whom  the  thirteenth 
session  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  decreed  that  their 
names  should  be  left  in  the  diptychs,  because  their  synodal 
letters  contained  nothing  heterodox.1  The  succeeding 
Patriarch,  Theodore  (since  678),  showed  that  he  was  so,  by 
the  fact  that,  he  wished  to  strike  the  name  of  Pope  Vitalian 
entirely  from  the  diptychs  (see  below,  p.  139),  as  a  friend 
of  heresy.  He  also  hesitated  to  send  his  Synodicon  or 
Enthronisticon  to  the  Pope,  fearing  that,  like  those  of  his 
predecessors,  it  might  not  be  received,  and  preferred  to 
despatch  to  Eome  a  TrpoTpeTrrifcr)  eiriaroXr],  i.e.  an  exhortation 
to  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  communion. 

Immediately  afterwards  the  Emperor  himself  addressed 
Pope  Donus  in  a  very  courteous  letter,  of  August  12,  678,  in 
the  introduction  of  which  he  entitled  him  olKovpeviKos 
TraTra?.  He  tells  him  in  this  letter  how,  from  the  beginning 
of  his  reign,  he  would  have  gladly  brought  about  the  union 
between  Eome  and  Constantinople  by  means  of  a  universal 
conference  (Ka0o\iKr)  avvddpoLa-is)  of  both  thrones,  but  had 
been  hindered  in  this  by  passing  events,  and  then  relates 
what  we  have  already  brought  forward  on  the  letter  of  the 
Patriarch  Theodore  to  the  Pope.  After  the  despatch  of  this 
patriarchal  letter,  he  (the  Emperor)  had  questioned  Theodore 
and  Macarius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  as  to  the  foundation  of 
the  disunion  between  Eome  and  the  East,  and  had  learnt  that 
some  expressions  which  had  not  formerly  been  customary 
were  to  blame  for  all.  .  .  .  There  should  be  no  perpetual 
disunion  on  account  of  such  lamentable  disputes,  so  that 
the  heathen  and  heretics  might  not  exult.  Because,  however, 
no  time  could  be  found  for  the  holding  of  an  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  the  Pope  should  send  deputies,  well  instructed  and 
armed  with  all  authority,  to  Constantinople,  that  they  might 
have  a  peaceful  examination  in  communion  with  Macarius  of 
Antioch  and  Theodore  of  Constantinople,  and,  under  the  pro 
tection  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  discover  and  accept  the  truth. 
As  security,  this  imperial  Sacra  should  avail.  He  himself, 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  575  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1350. 


EMPEROR   CONSTANTINE   DESIRES   A   GREAT   CONFERENCE.      139 

the  Emperor,  was  thoroughly  impartial,  and  would  compel 
the  papal  plenipotentiaries  to  nothing ;  but,  on  the  contrary, 
would  receive  them  with  all  distinction,  and  in  case  no  union 
should  come  to  pass,  would  let  them  depart  in  peace.  In 
respect  to  the  deputies  to  be  sent,  he  proposed,  if  the  Pope  so 
pleased,  to  select  three  or  more  clerics  from  the  Eoman 
Church  (in  specie),  from  the  rest  of  his  patriarchal  diocese 
some  twelve  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  add  to  them  four 
monks  from  each  of  the  four  Greek  monasteries  (in  Borne).1 
Thus,  he  hoped,  would  truth  come  to  light,  and  he  should 
have  held  it  a  great  sin  to  be  silent  when  he  considered 
the  disunion  among  the  bishops.  Macarius  of  Antioch  and 
Theodore  of  Constantinople  had  pressed  him  earnestly  to 
have  the  name  of  Pope  Vitalian  struck  from  the  diptychs, 
that  Honorius  should  remain  there  in  honour  of  the  Eoman 
see,  but  that  his  successors  should  not  be  mentioned  until  both 
thrones  had  come  to  an  understanding  with  respect  to  the 
contested  expressions.  He,  however,  the  Emperor,  had  not 
consented,  because  he  regarded  both  parties  as  orthodox,  and 
because  Vitalian  had  supported  him  greatly  in  his  victory 
over  the  usurper.  Finally,  he  had  given  orders  to  his  exarch 
in  Italy  to  support  the  deputies  of  the  Pope  in  question  in 
every  way,  with  ships,  money,  and  all  that  they  wanted,  and, 
if  necessary,  to  let  them  have  fortified  (armed)  ships  /cacrreX- 
Xarof?  Kapdffovs)  for  security.2 

When  this  imperial  letter  was  despatched,  Pope  Donus 
was  no  longer  alive  (t April  11,  6  7  8),  and  Agatho  was  already 
elected  (June  27,  678).  He  without  delay  fell  into  the  plan 
of  the  Emperor,  and  made  the  preparations  necessary  for 
carrying  it  out.  He  wished  the  whole  of  the  West  to  express 
itself  on  the  controversy,  and  that  this  should  be  done 
especially  by  the  bishops  in  the  districts  of  the  barbarians,— 
Lombardi,  Sclaves,  Franks,  Goths,  and  Britons, — that  they 
might  not  afterwards  bring  reproaches,  and  that  controversies 

1  Of.  above,  p.  102  ;  and  Walch,  KetzerUst.  Bd.  ix.  S.  392. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  195  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1043.     Partly  different  from  this,  the 
contents  of  the  imperial   convocation  letter  are  quoted  by  Gregory  ii.,    in 
Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  968.     Perhaps  he  had  in  view  a  second  later  letter  of  the 
Emperor  to  the  Pope,  for  at  the  time  of  its  composition  George  had  ascended 
the  see  of  Constantinople. 


140  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

might  not  break  out  in  the  West  itself.1  The  delay  rendered 
necessary  for  the  sending  of  the  papal  deputies  was  made  use 
of  by  Theodore  of  Constantinople  and  Macarius,  and  finally 
they  requested  the  Emperor  to  give  his  assent  to  the  blotting 
of  Vitalian  out  of  the  diptychs.2  Probably  they  represented 
the  matter  as  if  Koine  wanted  no  arrangement  and  would 
send  no  deputies. 

SEC.   313.    Western  preparatory  Synods,  especially 
at  Rome,  A.D.    680. 

The  Pope,  in  order  to  draw  in  the  whole  of  the  West  to- 
this  affair,  summoned  bishops  from  all  countries  to  Borne. 
This  we  learn  from  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  and  from  the 
Synod  which  he  himself  held  at  Eome.  Similar  assemblies 
were  also  to  take  place  in  the  provinces,  so  that  the  episcopate 
everywhere  might  speak  its  mind.  From  such  a  Synod  at 
Milan,  under  Archbishop  Mausuetus,  we  still  possess  a  letter 
to  the  Emperor,  in  which  Constantine  the  Great  and  Theo- 
dosius  the  Great  are  presented  to  him  as  models ;  at  the  same 
time,  adhesion  to  the  five  GEcumenical  Councils  is  declared,  and 
the  orthodox  doctrine  is  set  forth  in  a  new  creed,  at  the  close 
of  which  they  speak  of  the  two  natural  wills  and  operations 
of  Christ.3  Paul  the  deacon  mentions  the  priest  Damian,. 
afterwards  Bishop  of  Pavia,  as  having  composed  this  creed.4 

Another  Synod  of  the  same  kind  was  held,  A.D.  680,  by 
the  celebrated  Theodore  of  Canterbury  with  the  English 
bishops  at  Heathfield.  The  orthodox  faith,  with  adhesion  to 
the  five  (Ecumenical  Councils,  as  well  as  the  Lateran  Synod 
under  Pope  Martin,  was  pronounced,  and  Monothelitism 
condemned.  At  the  same  time  the  Synod  expressly  confessed 
the  doctrine  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  also  from 
the  Son.5  That  a  Gallican  Synod  also  took  place  at  the  same 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  294  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1122. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  346  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1163. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  203  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1051. 

4  De  Gestis  Longob.  lib.  vi.  c.  4. 

5  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  175  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.   p.    1038  :  Pagi,  ad  ann.   679,   6.     Cf. 
Schrodl,  Das  erste  Jahrhundert  der  engl.  Kirche,  S.  201  ff. 


WESTERN  PREPARATORY  SYNODS,  A.D.  680.       141 

time,  many  inferred  from  the  words  with  which  the  Galilean 
deputies  accompanied  their  subscription  at  the  Eoman  Synod 
held  by  Agatho,  e.g.  Felix  humilis  episcopus  Arelatensis,  legatus 
venerdbilis  synodi  per  Galliarum  provincias  constitute     But 
under    sy nodus  per  Galliarum  provincias    constitute    is  here 
meant,  as  Hardouin  rightly  perceived,  the  collective  Gallican 
episcopate,  and  not  a  Gallican  Synod.      It  is  the  same  with 
the  subscription  of  Archbishop  Wilfrid  of  York,  who  was  also 
present  at  the  Koman  Synod,  and  designated  himself  as  legatus 
venerdbilis  synodi  per  Britanniam  constitutes.     The  only  differ 
ence  is  that  Felix  of  Aries  was  really  a  deputy  of  the  French 
[Frankish]  episcopate,  whilst  Wilfrid  was  at  Eome  on  his  own 
business  (see  vol.  iv.  p.  492),  and  was  qualified  to  testify  to  the 
faith  of  England,  but  not  as  deputy  of  the  English  episcopate.2 
Following  the   lead  of    Pagi  (ad  ann.    679,   15),  many 
transfer  to  the  year  679  the  Eoman  Council  of   125   bishops, 
which  Pope  Agatho  held,  in  accordance  with  the  wish  of  the 
Emperor,  in    order   that    they    might    send  fully  instructed 
deputies    to    Constantinople.       Pagi    saw    rightly    that    this 
Council  was  different  from  the  one  which  restored  S.  Wilfrid 
of   York   (see  vol.  iv.  p.  492),  and  followed  soon   after  this. 
He  also  rightly  showed  that  it  took  place  at  Easter,  but  his 
reason  for  preferring  the  year   679  is  no  other  than  this,  that 
an  old  document  says  3  that  the  Synod  at  Heathfield  was  held 
in  the  year  680  after  the  return  of  Wilfrid  (from  Eorne),  and 
he  had  been  present  at  the  Eoman  Synod  of  the  125  bishops. 
But  this  document,  containing  the  Privilegium  Petriburgense, 
is  of  very  doubtful  authority,  and  in  any  case  considerably 
interpolated.      Its    statement    respecting    Wilfrid,    therefore, 
cannot  be  accepted  as  historically  true.     According  to  this, 
Wilfrid    was    present    at    the    Synod    of    Heathfield   as  re 
stored    Bishop   of   York,   whilst,    as    a    matter    of    fact,    he 
was  put  in  prison  after  his  return,    and  subsequently   was 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  306  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1131. 

2  Schelstrate,  Baronius,  and  others  are  of  the  opinion  that. Wilfrid  really  had 
a  commission  from  the  English  episcopate  to  represent  them  in  rebus  fidei  ;  but 
Wilfrid  had  gone  to  Rome,  having  had  a  dispute  with  his  colleagues,  and  to 
make  a  complaint  against  the  Primate,  Theodore  of  Canterbury.     Baronius, 
ad  ann.  680,  2. 

3  Pagi,  ad  ann.  679,  9,  10. 


142  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

banished,  and  did  not  return  to  his  diocese  until  the  year 
686.1  Our  reason  for  placing  the  Eoman  Synod  of  Agatho, 
this  precursor  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  rather  at 
Easter  680  than  in  679  is  the  following:  (a)  The  Pope  and 
the  bishops  assembled  around  him  say  themselves  that  at  the 
opening  of  the  Synod  they  waited  for  a  long  time  in  the 
hope  that  more  bishops  would  arrive  ;  (b)  the  deputies  whom 
this  Synod  sent  to  Constantinople  arrived  there  on  Septem 
ber  10,  680,2  so  that  we  naturally  refer  the  Synod  that 
sent  them  to  the  same  year. 

SEC.   314.    The  Deputies  from  Rome  and  the  Letters  with 
which  they  were  furnished. 

The  deputies  were  furnished  with  two  letters.  The  one, 
very  comprehensive,  was  from  Pope  Agatho  alone,3  was 
addressed  to  the  Emperor  and  his  two  brothers  whom  he  had 
raised  to  be  his  co-regents,  and  was  intended  to  form  a 
counterpart  to  the  celebrated  Epistola  of  Leo  i.  to  Flavian. 
The  Pope  in  his  letter  above  all  commends  the  zeal  of  the 
Emperors  for  the  true  faith,  and  that  they  wished  to  secure 
its  universal  acceptance  not  by  violence  and  by  terrorism. 
Christ  did  not  use  violence,  but  demands  voluntary  confession 
of  the  true  faith  from  His  people.  He,  the  Pope,  soon  after 
the  reception  of  the  imperial  letter  addressed  to  his  prede 
cessor  Donus,  had  begun  to  look  round  for  suitable  men,  in 
order  that  he  might  be  able  to  respond  to  the  command  of 
the  Emperor.  But  the  wide  extent  of  his  diocese  (concilium) 

1  Schrodl,  I.e.  S.  182  ff.  and  224. 

2  The  Vitse,  Pontif.  (Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  165)  give,  but  only  by  a  slip  of  the  pen, 
the  10th  of  November.     Of.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  680,   5.     That  the  papal  deputies 
arrived  as  early  as  September  is  shown  clearly  by  the  Sacra  of  the  Emperor  to 
the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  of  which  hereafter. 

3  The    animadversions  of  Roncaglia,  on   the  Church   History  of  Natalis 
Alexander,  maintain  that  the   Pope   in   this  letter  prescribed   to    the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council  what  it  had  to   do  (Nat.   Alex.   Hist.   Eccles.   sec.   vii. 
diss.  1,  ed.  Venet.  1778,  t.  v.  p.  513).      A  certain  support  for  this  view  is 
afforded  by  some  expressions  in  the  Decree  of  Faith  of  the  Synod  in  the  \6yos 
7rpo<r0wj>?7Ti/c6s  to  the  Emperor,  in  the  synodal  letter  to  Pope  Agatho,  in  the 
letter  of  the  Emperor  to  Leo  n.,  and  in  the  answer  of  the  latter.     Cf.  Walch, 
Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  395,  406. 


THE   DEPUTIES    FROM   ROME.  143 

had  caused  delay,  and  a  considerable  time  had  elapsed  before 
the  bishops  had  come  from  the  different  provinces  to  a 
Synod  at  Borne,  and  he  had  selected  the  proper  persons  partly 
from  the  city  of  Eome  subject  to  the  Emperors,  and  partly 
from  the  neighbourhood  ;  moreover,  he  had  waited  for  the 
arrival  of  others  from  distant  provinces  to  which  his  prede- 
cesssors  had  sent  missionaries.  He  had  now  selected  three 
bishops,  Abundantius  of  Paterno,  John  of  Beggio,  and  John 
of  Portus,1  also  the  priests  Theodore  and  George,  the  deacon 
John,  and  the  sub-deacon  Constantine  from  Rome,  also  the 
priest  Theodore  as  deputy  of  the  Church  of  Eavenna,  as 
envoys,2  more  in  order  to  fulfil  the  will  of  the  Emperors 
than  from  any  special  confidence  in  their  learning.  With 
people  who  live  among  the  barbarians  (nationes),  and  have  to 
earn  their  maintenance  by  bodily  work,  and  this  in  great  un 
certainty,  comprehensive  learning  cannot  possibly  be  ex 
pected.  But  that  which  former  Popes  and  the  five  holy 
Synods  had  expressed  is  held  fast  by  them  in  simplicity. 
He  had  communicated  to  them  also  the  testimonies  of  the 
Fathers,  together  with  their  writings,  so  that,  with  the 
Emperor's  permission,  they  might  be  able  from  these  to 
prove  what  the  Eoman  Church  believes.  Moreover,  they 
had  the  necessary  authority,  but  they  must  not  presume 
to  increase  or  diminish  or  alter  anything  (in  the  faith),  but 
must  simply  explain  the  tradition  of  the  apostolic  see, 
which  came  down  from  the  predecessors  of  the  Pope  (ut  nihil 
profecto  prcesumant  augere,  mimiere,  vel  mutare,  sed  traditionem 
hujus  apostolicce  sedis,  ut  a  proedecessoribus  apostolicis  pontificibus 
instituta  est,  sinceriter  enarrare).  The  Emperors  would  be 
pleased  to  receive  them  graciously.  That,  however,  the 
Emperors  might  know  what  the  faith  of  the  Eoman  Church 
is,  he  will  explain  it  as  he  has  received  it  through  the 
tradition  of  his  predecessors  (Honorius  also  ?),  and  he  does 
it  in  the  form  of  a  symbol,  at  the  end  of  which  the  doctrine 

1  We  learn  their  sees  from  Anastasius,  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  165. 

2  The  Roman  priests  Theodore  and  George  and  the  deacon  John  were  the 
special  legates  of  the  Pope  (in  specie),  on  account  of  which  they  presided  at  the 
sixth    (Ecumenical    Council.     The  three  bishops,  on   the  other  hand,   were 
deputies  of  the  Roman  Synod,  of  the  patriarchal  diocese  (concilii,  as  they  say), 
and  therefore  subscribed  after  the  Patriarchs. 


144  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

of  two  natural  wills  and  operations  is  asserted.1  This  is 
the  apostolic  and  evangelical  tradition,  which  the  apostolic 
(Eoman)  Church  holds  fast,  this  the  Holy  Ghost  taught  by 
the  prince-apostles,  this  S.  Peter  handed  down  under  whose 
protection  this  apostolic  (Roman)  Church  never  swerved  from 
the  way  of  truth  (nunquam  a  via  veritatis  in  qualibet  erroris 
parte  deflexa  est).  This  is  the  true  rule  of  faith  which  the 
apostolic  Church,  the  mother  of  the  empire,  in  good  and 
bad  fortune  has  always  held  fast,  which  "by  the  grace  of  God 
has  never  erred  from  the  way  of  the  apostolic  tradition,  now  sub 
mitted  to  heretical  innovations.  As  she  received  from  the  be 
ginning  the  pure  doctrine  from  the  apostles,  so  it  remains  until 
the  end  unfalsified,  according  to  the  promise  of  the  Lord  : 
"  Simon,  Simon,  behold,  Satan  asked  to  have  you,  that  he 
might  sift  you  as  wheat :  but  I  made  supplication  for  thee, 
that  thy  faith  fail  not ;  and  do  thou,  when  once  thou  art 
turned  again,  stablish  thy  brethren"  (S.  Luke  xxii.  31,  32). 
This  the  predecessors  of  the  Pope,  as  every  one  knew,  had 
always  done,  and  so  will  he  also  do.  Since  the  Bishops  of 
Constantinople  had  endeavoured  to  introduce  the  heretical 
innovation,  the  predecessors  of  the  Pope  had  never  failed  to 
-exhort  them,  and  to  adjure  them  to  keep  away  from  the 
heretical  dogma,  or  at  least  to  keep  silence,  so  that  there 
should  be  no  assertion  of  one  will  and  one  operation  of  the 
two  natures  in  Christ,  by  which  discussion  should  arise  in 
the  Church.  In  that  which  follows,  the  Pope  explains  the 
orthodox  doctrine  of  two  wills  and  two  operations  in  Christ 
in  detail,  and  adduces  in  support  many  Scripture  passages 
with  their  exposition  by  the  Fathers  of  the  Church.  He 
shows  also  that  the  will  is  a  matter  of  nature,  and  that 

1  "  Cum  duas  autem  naturas  duasque  iiaturales  voluntates,  et  duas  naturales 
operationes  confitemur  in  uno  Domino  nostro  J.  Chr.,  non  contrarias  eas, 
nee  adversas  ad  alterutrum  dicimus  (sicut  a  via  veritatis  errantes  apostolicam 
.traditionem  accusant,  absit  haec  impietas  a  fidelium  cordibus),  nee  tanquam 
separatas  in  duabus  personis  vel  subsistentiis,  sed  duas  dicimus  eundemque 
Dominum  nostrum  J.  Chr.  sicut  naturas  ita  et  naturales  in  se  voluntates  et 
.operationes  habere,  divinam  scilicet  et  humanam  :  divinam  quidem  voluntatem 
<et  operationem  habere  ex  seterno  cum  coessentiali  Patre  communem  ;  humanam 
temperaliter  ex  nobis  cum  nostra  natura  susceptam."  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  239  ; 
Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1079. 


THE   DEPUTIES   FROM   ROME.  145 

one  who  denies  the  human  will  of  Christ  must  also  deny  His 
human  soul ;  he  further  shows  that  Dyothelitism  is  contained 
already  in  the  decrees  of  the  faith  of  Chalcedon  and  of  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  that  the  Monothelite  doctrine  offended 
against  these  decrees,  and  took  away  the  diversity  of  natures 
in  Christ.  To  this  Pope  Agatho  adds  many  patristic  testi 
monies  for  Dyothelitism,  partly  the  same  which  had  already 
been  adduced  by  the  Lateran  Synod  (sec.  307),  and,  again 
imitating  the  Lateran  Council,  selects  several  passages  from 
the  books  of  older  heretics  in  order  to  prove  that  Monothe- 
litism  has  a  relationship  with  these.  He  also  gives  a  short 
history  of  the  new  controversies,  and  shows  how  the 
innovators,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter  of  Constanti 
nople,  had  often  contradicted  themselves,  sometimes  maintain 
ing  one  will  and  one  energy,  and  sometimes  forbidding  to 
speak  of  one  or  two  energies  and  wills.  From  the  error  of 
these  teachers  the  Church  must  be  delivered,  and  all  bishops, 
clerics,  and  laymen  must  accept  the  orthodox  doctrine  which 
is  founded  on  the  firm  rock  of  this  Church  of  S.  Peter 
quce  ejus  gratia  atque  prcesidio  db  omni  err  ore  illibata  permanet. 
For  this  Emperors  should  be  active  and  drive  away  the 
heretical  teachers.  If  they  were,  God  would  bless  their 
government.  If  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople  received  this 
doctrine,  then  there  would  be  one  heart  and  one  mind  ;  but 
if  he  preferred  to  hold  by  the  innovation  against  which  the 
previous  Popes  had  given  warning  indesinenter,  he  would  take 
upon  himself  a  huge  responsibility  before  God.  At  the  close, 
the  Pope  again  entreats  and  adjures  the  Emperors  to  bring 
the  matter  to  a  good  end.1 

In  this  letter  there  are  three  points  quite  specially  worthy 
of  consideration  :  (1)  The  certainty  and  clearness  with  which 
Agatho  sets  forth  the  orthodox  Dyothelitic  doctrine ;  (2)  the 
zeal  with  which  he  repeatedly  declares  the  infallibility  of  the 
Roman  Church  ;  and  (3)  the  strong  assurance,  many  times 
repeated,  that  all  his  predecessors  had  stood  fast  in  the  right 
doctrine,  and  had  given  exhortation  to  the  Patriarchs  of  Con 
stantinople  in  the  correct  sense.  Agatho  was  then  far 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  234-286  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1074-1115.     This  extract 
from  the  letter  of  Agatho  is  much  more  complete  than  in  the  first  edition. 
V. — 10 


146  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

removed  from  accusing  his  predecessor  Honorius  of  heresy, 
and  the  supposition  that  he  had  beforehand  consented  to 
his  condemnation  entirely  contradicts  this  letter.1 

The  second  document  which  the  deputies  at  Constanti 
nople  had  to  present  was  the  synodal  letter  of  the  Koman 
Council.  It  is  also  addressed  to  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Pogonatus  and  his  two  brothers  and  co-regents,  sent  by  Pope 
Agatho  cum  universis  synodis  ( =  provinces)  subjacentibus 
concilia  apostolicce  sedis,  and  subscribed  by  all  present,  the 
Pope  and  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  bishops.  At  the 
beginning  these  speak  as  though  they  were  all  subjects  of  the 
Empire  ;  but  the  subscriptions  show  that  there  were  present 
also  a  good  many  bishops  from  Lombardy,  two  bishops  and  a 
deacon  as  plenipotentiaries  of  the  Gallican  episcopate,  and 
Wilfrid  of  York  from  England.  By  far  the  majority  came 
from  Italy  and  Sicily,  and  they  subscribed,  as  it  seemed, 
without  any  definite  order.  In  their  synodal  letter  they 
thank  the  Emperors  for  the  trouble  they  take  to  help  the 
true  faith  to  full  splendour,  and  hope  that  the  rare  fortune 
may  be  allotted  to  the  government  of  the  Emperors,  that 
through  them  the  light  of  "  our  Catholic  and  apostolic  true 
faith  (the  Eoman)  might  shine  in  the  whole  world,  which  light, 
rising  from  the  source  of  all  light,  was  preserved  by  the 
prince-apostles  Peter  and  Paul,  and  their  disciples  and 
apostolic  successors  up  to  the  present  Pope,  nulla  hceretici 
err  or  is  tetra  caligine  tenebratutn,  necfalsitatis  nebulis  confoedatum, 
nee  intermissis  hcereticis  pravitatibus  velut  caliginosis  nebulis  per- 
umbratum"  etc.  They  then  speak  of  the  difficulty  of  the 
present  times  of  confusion  and  war,  when  the  provinces  were 
everywhere  attacked  by  the  barbarians,  and  the  impossibility, 
when  the  Church  had  lost  her  property  and  the  clergy  had 
to  earn  a  living  by  manual  labour,  of  finding  among  the  clergy 
men  of  learning,  eloquence,  etc.  But  they  were  strong  in 
the  faith,  and  that  was  their  best  possession.  This  faith  they 
now  declare  in  a  formal  creed,  in  which  also  the  doctrine  of 
two  natural  wills  and  operations  is  received.  This  creed, 
they  proceed  to  say,  the  Lateran  Synod  under  Pope  Martin 

Added  in  the  second  edition  [a  paragraph  which  gives  rise  to  many  re 
flections]. 


THE   DEPUTIES   FROM   ROME.  14? 

proclaimed.  The  Emperors  should  make  this  creed  prevail 
everywhere,  and  take  care  that  the  tares  were  rooted  out. 
The  originators  of  the  tares  were  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Cyrus 
of  Alexandria,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter  of  Constan 
tinople,  and  all  who  had  remained  likeminded  with  them  to 
the  end  (of  their  life).  They  had  not  only  swerved  from  the 
truth,  but  had  also  spoken  against  it.  The  Synod  further 
excused  itself  for  sending  the  deputies  so  late.  In  the  first 
place,  the  sees  of  many  members  of  the  Synod  were  far 
removed,  by  the  ocean,  and  therefore  the  journey  to  Kome 
had  required  much  time.  Moreover,  they  had  hoped  that 
Theodore  of  Canterbury,  the  archbishop  and  philosopher  of  the 
great  island  of  Britain,  and  other  bishops  of  that  region, 
would  arrive  and  join  the  Synod.  So  also  they  had  been 
forced  to  wait  for  many  members  from  different  districts  of 
the  Lombards,  Sclaves,  Franks,  Gauls,  Goths,  and  Britons, 
that  their  declaration  might  go  forth  from  them  collectively, 
and  not  merely  from  one  part  of  them  and  remain  unknown 
to  the  other,  especially  as  many  bishops,  whose  sees  were 
among  the  barbarians,  were  much  interested  in  this  matter. 
It  would  be  a  great  gain  if  they  were  to  agree.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  would  be  very  bad  if  they,  taking  offence  at  a  point 
of  faith,  should  assume  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  others. 
The  Synod  wished  and  strove  that  the  Empire  in  which  the 
see  of  S.  Peter,  which  all  Christians  venerate,  is  set  up, 
should,  for  Peter's  sake,  have  a  rank  above  all  other  nations. 
The  Emperors  would  please  to  receive  the  deputies  graciously, 
and,  when  the  business  was  completed,  let  them  return  again 
peacefully  to  their  home.  Thus  would  they  reap  glory,  like 
Constantine  the  Great,  Theodosius  the  Great,  Marcian,  and 
Justinian.  They  should  labour  for  this,  that  the  true  faith, 
which  the  Eoman  Church  had  preserved,  should  prevail  uni 
versally.  Whoever  of  the  bishops  should  acknowledge  this 
faith  was  to  be  regarded  as  a  brother ;  whoever  should  refuse 
it  should  be  condemned  as  an  enemy  of  the  Catholic  faith. 
The  adoption  of  this  faith  would  bring  a  great  blessing.1 

When  the  Western  deputies  arrived  in  Constantinople, 
they  were  received  by  the  Emperor  with  great  honour,  and 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  286-315  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1115-1142. 


148  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

exhorted  to  settle  the  controversy  in  a  peaceful  manner, 
without  dialectic,  purely  according  to  the  utterances  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Their  maintenance  they  received  from  the 
Emperor,  and  the  Placidia  Palace  was  assigned  to  them  as  a 
residence.  On  a  Sunday  they  took  part  in  a  very  solemn 
procession  to  S.  Mary's  Church  in  the  Blachernse  suburb.1 

If  the  chronological  statement  in  the  imperial  edict  now 
to  be  described  is  correct,  Constantine  Pogonatus,  on  the  same 
day  on  which  the  deputies  landed  at  Constantinople,  published 
a  Sacra  to  the  Patriarch  George  (pa/cap IMTCLTW  ap^ieTrLcrKOTrw 
Kal  olKov/jbevLKO}  iraTpidp-^rf)^  who  in  the  meantime  had  suc 
ceeded  the  banished  Theodore,2  to  the  effect  that  he  meant 
to  summon  all  the  metropolitans  and  bishops  belonging  to  his 
jurisdiction  to  Constantinople,  that,  under  God's  assistance, 
the  dogma  on  the  will  and  the  energy  of  Christ  might 
be  carefully  examined.  He  would  also  make  Archbishop 
Macarius  of  Antioch  acquainted  with  it,  that  he  too  might 
send  metropolitans  and  bishops  from  his  diocese  to  Constan 
tinople.  For  the  same  purpose  the  Emperor  himself  had,  a 
considerable  time  ago,  applied  to  the  most  holy  Pope  Donus 
of  Old  Rome,3  and  his  successor,  the  holy  Agatho,  had  sent  as 
his  representatives  the  priests  Theodore  and  George,  together 
with  the  deacon  John.  On  the  part  of  the  Eoman  Council, 
there  were  three  bishops  with  other  clerics  and  monks 
appointed.  They  had  arrived  in  Constantinople,  and  had 
delivered  to  the  Emperor  the  letters  which  they  had  brought 
with  them.  The  Patriarch  George  should  now  make  haste  to 
summon  his  bishops.4 

In  the  old  Latin  translation,  but  not  in  the  Greek  original, 
this  decree  bears  the  date :  iv.  Idus  Sept.  imperante  piissimo 
perpetuo  Augusto  Constantino  imperatore  anno  xxviii.,  et  post 

1  Anastasii  Vita  Pontif.  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  165.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ami.  680,  6. 

2  Baronius  (ad  ann.  681,    25)  supposes  that  Theodore  had  been  deposed  on 
account  of  his  adhesion  to  Monothelitism.     On  the  contrary,  Pagi  remarks  (ad 
ann.  681,  6)  that  the  Emperor  had  not  yet  persecuted  Monothelitism  ;  this  took 
place  only  after  the  eighth  session  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council.     But  it  is 
still  possible  that  Theodore  was  forced  to  give  way  because  he  was  an  enemy  of 
union,  and  this  lay  in  the  plan  of  the  Emperor. 

3  Of  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  the  Emperor  says  not  a  word, 
probably  because  those  cities  were  then  in  the  possession  of  the  Mahometans. 

4  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  202 ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1050. 


FIRST  SESSION   OF  THE   (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.  149 

consulatum  ejus  anno  xii.  But  Pagi  showed  that,  instead  of 
xxviii.  we  must  read  xxvii.  (ad  ann.  680,  4).  Constantine 
became  co-regent  with  his  father  before  the  26th  of  April 
654,  so  that  his  twenty -seventh  year  began  in  April  680, 
and  in  fact  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  also 
give  the  number  xxvii.  The  imperial  edict  was  accordingly 
published  on  September  10,  680.1  This  also  agrees  with 
ann.  xii.  post  consulatum,  for  Constantine  became  consul  per- 
petuus  towards  the  end  of  the  year  668,  so  that  the  10th  of 
September  680  falls  into  the  twelfth  year  of  his  consulate. 

SEC.   315.  First  Session  of  the  Sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod? 

As  we  saw,  the  Emperor,  at  first,  having  regard  to  the  cir 
cumstances  of  the  time,  had  intended  no  (Ecumenical  Synod ; 
but  that  which  actually  took  place,  at  its  first  session  and  with 
his  consent,  called  itself  an  olKov/juevLK^.  How  this  alteration 
took  place  is  unknown.  Perhaps  it  arose  from  the  fact  that, 
contrary  to  expectation,  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and 
Jerusalem  also  sent  their  representatives,  and  thus  had  given 
the  possibility  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  The  Acts  are  still 
preserved  for  us  in  the  Greek  original,  and  in  two  old  Latin 
translations,  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  195—736,  and  pp.  738— 
922.  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1043-1479  and  1479-1644.3 
The  question,  whether  these  Acts  were  falsified,  we  shall 
discuss  later  on.  The  collective  meetings  of  the  Synod  were 
held,  as  the  Acts  state,  eV  rcS  o-eKperw  rov  6eiov  TraXariov,  rat 
OVTQ)  Xeyo/jievQ)  Tpov\\a).  Pagi  (ad  ann.  680,  n.  8)  knew 
that  the  splendid  cupola  which  covers  the  church  of  S.  Sophia 
at  Constantinople,  a  work  of  the  Emperor  Justinian,  was 
called  sometimes  Tpov\\iov,  sometimes  trullum  or  trulla. 
He  concluded  from  this  that  the  sixth  Council  had  been  held 

1  According  to  this,  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  343,  must  be  corrected, 
where  he  gives  the  year  679.     At  p.  387  he  has  it  correctly. 

2  The  sixth   (Ecumenical   Synod   drew  up  .no  canons.     But  those  of  the 
Quinisext  were  often  ascribed  to  it.     See  below,  sec.  327. 

3  The  one  Latin  translation  is  placed  by  the  side  of  the  Greek  text,  and 
Walch  (Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  14)   asserts  that  it  was  the  work  of  the  Roman 
librarian  Anastasius  in  the  ninth  century,  but  without  giving  his  reasons.    The 
other  more  accurate  Latin  translation  is  placed  after  the  Greek  text. 


150  HISTOKY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

in  eo  cedificio.  But  trulla  or  trullum  ( =  mason's  trowel, 
scoop)  was  terminus  technicus  for  all  cupolas  or  domes,1  and 
the  words  of  the  Acts  point  to  a  hall  (or  chapel),  with  a 
vault  like  a  cupola,  in  the  imperial  palace.  With  this  also 
Anastasius  agrees  in  the  Vitce  Pontificum,  when  he  says  that 
the  Synod  had  been  held  in  basilica  quce  Trullus  appellatur,  intra 
palatium?  The  transactions  lasted  from  November  7,  680, 
to  September  16,  681,  and  the  sessions  are  said  to  have  been 
eighteen.  The  number  of  persons  present  during  this  long 
period  differed ;  at  the  beginning  it  was  smaller,  subsequently 
larger.  The  minutes  of  the  last  session  were  signed  by  174 
members,  and  first  by  the  three  papal  legates,  the  Eoman 
priests  Theodore  and  George,  with  the  deacon  John.  After 
them  came  the  Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople,  and  the 
other  Patriarchs  or  their  representatives,  then  the  metro 
politans  and  the  rest  of  the  bishops.  The  bishops  represent 
ing  the  Eoman  Council  were  placed  among  the  metropolitans 
and  after  the  Patriarchs.3  The  minutes  of  the  other  sessions 
enumerate  considerably  fewer  numbers,  so  that  at  the  first 
session  there  were  only  43  bishops  or  episcopal  representatives 
and  a  few  abbots.  Theophanes,  however,  speaks  of  289  bishops 
being  present.4  Besides  the  Eoman  clergy,  the  legates  of  the 
Pope  in  specie,  and  the  three  Italian  bishops,  there  appeared  also 
several  Greek  bishops  as  legati  of  the  Eoman  Synod.  John, Arch 
bishop  of  Thessalonica,  subscribed  as  fil/cdpios  rov  a 
Opovov  fPa>//.?79  KOI  Xrjyardpios,  Stephen  of  Corinth  as 
rov  d7roaTo\iKov  Opovov  'Pto/jLr)*;,  Basil  of  Cortina  in  Crete  as 
T?}?  07/09  awoBov  TOV  diroa-roXt/cov  Opovov  Tr}?  Trpecr- 
'Pwfuy:.  These  three  bishops  belonged  to  Illyricum 
Orientate,  and  so,  until  the  year  730,  to  the  Eoman  patriarch 
ate  and  the  Synodus  Romana ; 5  and  even  if  they  did  not 
personally  appear  at  the  Eoman  Synod  of  the  year  680,  yet 
they  could  have  obtained  full  authority  from  this  Synod. 

1  Cf.    Du  Cange,    Gloss,    mediae,  et  inf.  Lat.   s.v.    Trullus.      [Smith   and 
Gheetham,  Diet,  of  Antiq.  s.v.  p.  1998.] 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  166. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  639  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1402  sqq. 

4  Theophan.  Chronogr.,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  551. 

5  Cf.  Wiltsch,  KircM.  Statistik,   Bd.  i.   S.  72,   126,   402,  431  ;  Asscmani, 
Biblioth-juris  oriental,  t.  v.  p.  75. 


FIRST   SESSION   OF  THE  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.  151 

Moreover,  the  Archbishop  of  Thessalonica  had  been  for  a  con 
siderable  time  vicar  of  the  Pope  for  Illyricum,  and  when  the 
Emperor  Justinian  i.  separated  the  provinces  of  Achaia  and 
Hellas  from  Illyricum,  they  received  a  Eoman  vicar  of  their 
own  in  the  Archbishop  of  Corinth.1 

The  place  of  president  was  occupied  by  the  Emperor  in 
proper  person,  surrounded  by  a  number  of  high  officials 
(patricians  and  ex-consuls).  On  his  left  the  deputies  of  the 
Pope  had  their  place,2  then  the  priest  and  legate  Theodore  of 
Eavenna,  Bishop  Basil  of  Gortyna,  the  representative  of  the 
patriarchal  administrator  of  Jerusalem,  the  monk  and  priest 
George,  and  the  bishops  sent  by  the  Eoman  Council.  To  the 
right  of  the  Emperor  sat  the  Patriarchs  George  of  Constanti 
nople  and  Macarius  of  Antioch,  next  the  representative  of 
the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  the  monk  and  priest  Peter,  with 
all  the  bishops  subject  to  Constantinople  and  Antioch.  The 
Holy  Gospels  were  placed  in  the  midst.  At  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  session,  the  Emperor  declared  that  business  of  the 
Empire  would  prevent  his  being  henceforth  personally 
present,  but  that  he  would  send  representatives.  He  was 
again  personally  present  only  at  the  last  session. 

As  to  the  presidency  of  the  Emperor  and  his  representat 
ives,  the  case  is  the  same  as  at  the  fourth  (Ecumenical 
Synod  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  188).  Their  conduct  of  the  business 
had  to  do  only  with  the  external,  with,  so  to  speak,  the 
economy  and  business  of  the  Synod.  With  the  inner  affairs 
they  did  not  mix,  but  left  the  decision  of  these  to  the 
Synod  alone,  and  distinguished  steadfastly  and  expressly 
between  themselves  and  the  Synod.  In  the  minutes  of  each 
session  the  Emperor  and  his  attendants  or  representatives 
are  first  mentioned,  and  then  they  go  on  with  the  words  :  Con- 
veniente  QUOQUE  sancta  et  universali  synodo,  etc.  At  the  head 
of  the  latter,  the  Synod  proper,  stood  the  papal  legates ; 
therefore  they  subscribed  before  all  the  bishops,  but  the 
Emperor  after  all  the  bishops ;  and  the  Emperor,  not  with 

1  Cf.  Peter  de  Marca,  De  Concordia  saccrdotii  et  imperil,  lib.  v.  c.  19,  2,  3  ; 
and  c.  29,  11. 

'-  The  left  side  was  formerly  the  place  ,of  honour.  See  Baronius,  ad  ann. 
325,  58  ;  and  213,  6. 


152  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

the  formula  employed  by  all  the  members  of  the  Synod,  op/ 
vTreypatya,  but  with  the  words,  aveyvwpev  real  avv^veaa^ev 
(legimus  et  consensimus),  clearly  showing  that  he  did  not 
regard  himself  as  a  member,  much  less  as  the  proper  pre 
sident  of  the  Synod.1  His  attendants,  and  his  represent 
atives  who  presided  at  sessions  12  to  17,  did  not  subscribe 
at  all. 

After  all  the  members  had  taken  their  places  at  the  first 
session,  November  7,  680,  the  papal  legates  opened  the 
transactions  with  the  request:  As  the  new  doctrine  of  one 
energy  and  one  will  in  the  incarnate  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  one 
of  the  Holy  Trinity,  had  been  introduced  for  about  forty-six 
years  by  the  Bishops  Sergius,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter  of 
Constantinople,  in  union  with  Cyrus  of  Alexandria  and 
Theodore  of  Pharan,  and  all  the  attempts  of  the  apostolic  see 
to  remove  the  error  had  hitherto  proved  ineffectual,  it  should 
now  be  shown,  from  the  side  of  the  Constantinopolitans, 
whence  this  innovation  came.  They  clothed  this  demand 
in  the  form  of  an  address  to  the  Emperor,  and  all  the 
speakers  proceeded  in  the  same  manner,  just  as  in  many 
parliaments  the  speakers  address  their  words  to  the  president. 
The  Emperor,  as  director  of  the  business,  then  invited  the 
Patriarchs  George  of  Constantinople  and  Macarius  of  Antioch 
to  answer  the  papal  legates  ;  and  Macarius,  the  monk  Stephen, 
and  the  Bishops  Peter  of  Nicomedia  and  Solomon  of  Claneus 
(in  G-alatia),  declared  in  the  name  of  the  two  patriarchates : 
"  We  have  not  invented  these  new  expressions,  but  have 
only  taught  what  we  have  received  by  tradition  from  the 
holy  (Ecumenical  Synods,  the  holy  Fathers,  from  Sergius  and 
his  successors,  and  from  Pope  Honorius  and  from  Cyrus  of 
Alexandria,  in  regard  to  the  will  and  the  energy,  and  we  are 
ready  to  prove  this."  At  their  request  the  Emperor  had  the 
Acts  of  the  older  Synods  brought  from  the  patriarcheion,  and 
the  monk  and  priest  Stephen,  a  disciple  of  Macarius  of  Antioch, 
read  aloud  the  minutes  of  the  third  (Ecumenical  Synod  at 
Ephesus.  When  he  came  to  the  passage  in  the  letter  of 
Cyril  to  the  Emperor  Theodosius  n.,2  in  which  it  is  said  of 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  656  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1413. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  617  f.,  Hist,  oftlw  Councils,  vol.  iii.  sec.  129. 


FROM   THE   SECOND   TO   THE   SEVENTH   SESSION.  153 

Christ,  "His  will  is  almighty,"  Macarius  endeavoured  to 
discover  a  testimony  for  Monothelitism  there  ;  but  the  Eoman 
deputies,  and  with  them  some  bishops  of  the  patriarchate  of  Con 
stantinople,  and  also  the  imperial  commissioners  (judices,  cf  .  vol. 
iii.  sec.  188),  replied  promptly,  that  Cyril  was  speaking  here 
only  of  the  will  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  and  in  no  way 
of  the  one  will  of  the  two  natures.  The  other  Acts  of  the 
third  Synod  were  read  by  deacon  Solomon  without  any 
remark  being  made.1 

SEC.   316.  From  the  Second  to  the  Seventh  Session. 

At  the  second  session,  November  10,  the  Acts  of  the 
fourth  (Ecumenical  Council  were  read,  and  among  them  the 
celebrated  Epistola  dogmatica  of  Pope  Leo.  When  they  came, 
in  the  letter,  to  the  well-known  words,  Agit  enim  utraqiie 
forma  cum  alterius  communione,  quod  proprium  habuit  :  Verio 
quidem  operante  quod  Verbi  est,  carne  autem  exsequente  quod 
carnis  est,  et  horum  unum  coruscat  miraculis,  aliud  vero  succum- 
Ut  injuriis  (see  vol.  iii.  sec.  176),  the  papal  legates  remarked, 
"  Leo  here  teaches  clearly  two  naturales  operationes  inconfuse 
ct  indivise  in  Christ,  and  this  letter  of  his  was  declared  by 
the  fourth  (Ecumenical  Synod  for  the  firmamentum  orthodoxcv 
fidei.  Macarius  of  Antioch,  and  those  who  held  his  opinions, 
should  express  themselves  on  this  subject."  Macarius 
replied  :  "  I  do  not  speak  of  two  energies,  and  even  Leo  has 
not  used  this  expression."  The  remark  of  the  Emperor, 
"  Do  you  mean  then  that  Leo  in  those  words  asserted  only 
one  energy  ?  "  brought  him  into  a  corner.  He  slipped  out, 
however,  with  the  words  :  "  I  use  no  word  of  number  (one 
or  two)  in  regard  to  the  energy,  but  teach,  with  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  OeavSpiKrjv  evepyeiav  "  (without  a  word  of 
number).  In  the  same  way  he  evaded  the  second  question 
of  the  Emperor,  "How  do  you  understand  the 


1  The  minutes  of  our  Synod  speak  here  of  two  /3t/3Xta  which  contained  the 
Acts  of  the  Ephesine  Synod.  In  the  first  /3t/3X£oj>  were  contained  the  documents 
existing  before  the  Synod,  e.g.,  the  letter  of  Cyril  to  the  Emperor  ;  in  the 
second,  the  Acts  of  the  Ephesine  Synod  in  specie.  Our  present  collections  of 
Councils  divide  these  Acts  into  three  books,—  documents  drawn  up  («)  before, 
(&)  during,  and  (c)  after  the  Synod  of  Ephesus. 


154  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

evepyeia  ? "  by  saying,  "  I  form  no  judgment  on  the 
subject,"  i.e.  I  do  not  endeavour  to  define  this  notion  more 
closely. 

After  this  digression,  the  reading  of  the  Chalcedonian 
Acts  was  again  continued,  and  brought  to  an  end  at  this 
session.1  In  the  third,  November  13,  the  Acts  of  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Council  came  in  their  turn.  At  the  head  of  the 
first  book  of  these  there  was  found  the  often-repeated  \6yos 
of  Mennas,  then  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  to  Pope  Vigilius, 
in  regard  to  the  ev  0eXtyfia  in  Christ  (see  vol.  iv.  sec.  267). 
The  papal  legates  immediately  protested  against  the  reading 
of  this  document,  remarking,  "  This  first  book  of  the  Acts  is 
falsified :  the  \6yo$  of  Mennas  was  in  no  way  entered  upon 
their  Acts  by  the  fifth  Synod :  this  was  done  at  a  later 
period,  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  controversy."  A 
more  careful  examination  of  the  Acts,  accomplished  by  the 
Emperor,  his  officials,  and  some  bishops,  showed,  in  fact,  that 
there  had  been  introduced,  before  the  first  book  of  those  Acts, 
three  unnumbered  quaternions  (parts  of  four  sheets),  and  that 
the  fourth  (originally  the  first)  quaternion  was  still  marked 
No.  1,  and  the  fifth,  No.  2,  etc.  Moreover,  the  handwriting 
of  those  quaternions  inserted  at  the  beginning  was  quite 
different  from  that  of  the  rest.  The  Emperor  therefore 
ordered  this  document  to  be  left  out,  and  the  rest  of  the 
Acts  of  the  fifth  Council  to  be  read.  No  further  opposition 
was  made  to  any  part  of  the  first  book.  When,  however, 
in  the  second  book,  two  pretended  letters  of  Pope  Vigilius  to 
the  Emperor  and  Empress  were  brought  forward,  which  were 
said  to  belong  to  the  minutes  of  the  seventh  session  of  the 
fifth  (Ecumenical  Council,  and  contained  the  doctrine  of  una 
operatio  (see  vol.  iv.  sec.  267),  the  papal  legates  exclaimed: 
"  Vigilius  did  not  teach  that,  and  this  second  book  of  the 
Acts  has  been  falsified  like  the  first ;  those  are  not  letters  of 
Vigilius.  As  the  fifth  Synod  recognised  him,  then  that  must 
have  taught,  as  he  is  supposed  to  have  done,  unam  operationem. 
But  read  only  its  Acts  further,  and  nothing  of  the  kind  will 
be  found."  So  it  was  also  in  fact,  and  the  Emperor  ordered 
a  search  to  be  made  for  the  pretended  letters  of  Vigilius. 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  217  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1062  sqq. 


FROM  THE  SECOND   TO  THE   SEVENTH   SESSION.  155 

He  also  proposed  to  the  Synod  and  the  Judices  the  question : 
Whether  anywhere  in  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  which  were 
read,  the  doctrine  of  one  will  and  one  energy  was  found,  as 
Macarius  and  his  friends  had  asserted.  The  Synod  and  the 
Judices  answered  in  the  negative,  and  demanded  of  Macarius 
and  his  companions  to  bring  forward,  at  a  later  session,  the 
second  part  promised  of  their  patristic  proofs  for  Mono- 
thelitism,  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  At  the  close,  the 
Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople  and  his  suffragans  peti 
tioned  that  they  should  have  read  the  letters  sent  forth  by 
Pope  Agatho  and  his  Synod,  and  the  Emperor  promised  that 
this  should  be  done  at  the  next  session.1 

The  reading  of  these  two  extensive  documents,  which  we 
already  know  (see  above,  sec.  314),  occupied  the  whole  of  the 
fourth  session,  November  15.2  At  the  fifth,  December  7, 
Macarius  and  his  friends  presented  two  volumes  of  patristic 
testimonies  for  the  Monothelite  doctrine.3  In  accordance 
with  their  request,  the  Emperor  allowed  these  to  be  read,  and 
sanctioned  their  being  permitted  subsequently  to  bring  forward 
further  proofs  from  the  Fathers  if  they  wished.  Accordingly, 
at  the  sixth  session,  February  12,  681,  they  presented  a  third 
volume,  and  after  it  had  been  read  aloud,  and  they,  on  being 
interrogated,  declared  that  there  was  nothing  more  that  they 
wished  to  add,  the  Emperor  had  all  the  three  volumes  sealed 
up  by  the  Judices  and  by  a  deputation  of  the  Council  and 
the  papal  legates.  The  latter  hereupon  declared :  Macarius 
of  Antioch,  his  disciple  Stephen,  Bishop  Peter  of  Nicornedia, 
and  Solomon  of  Claneus,  have  in  no  way,  by  the  patristic 
passages  collected  by  them,  proved  anything  in  regard  to  the 
one  will  or  the  one  energy.  On  the  contrary,  they  have 
mutilated  these  passages,  and  that  which  was  said  of  the 
unity  of  the  will  in  the  Trinity  they  have  referred  to  the 
incarnate  Christ.  We  pray,  therefore,  to  be  allowed  to 
bring  from  the  patriarcheion  of  this  residence  city  genuine 
copies  of  the  Fathers  in  question,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to 
prove  the  deception.  Moreover,  we  have  prepared  a  collection 

1  .Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  221  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1066  sqq. 
-  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  230,  315  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1071,  1142. 
3  We  shall  get  to  know  them  more  exactly  in  the  eighth  and  ninth  sessions. 


156  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

both  of  passages  from  the  Fathers  who  speak  of  two  wills,  and 
of  passages  of  heretics  who,  agreeing  with  Macarius,  teach 
one  will  and  one  operation.  We  pray  your  Piety  (the 
Emperor)  that  these  also  may  be  read.1 

On  the  following  day,  at  the  seventh  session,  the  Koman 
deputies  presented  their  collection  with  the  title :  Testimonies 
sanctorum  ac  probabilium  patrum  demonstrantia  duos  voluntates 
et  duas  operationes  in  Domino  Deo  et  salvatore  nostro  J.  Ch. ;  and 
those  patristic  passages,  together  with  the  heretical  passages 
opposed  to  them,  were  read  aloud  by  the  priest  and  monk 
Stephen  (from  the  monastery  domus  Arsicia),  who  belonged 
to  the  suite  of  the  legates.2  George  of  Constantinople  and 
Macarius  of  Antioch  received  transcripts  of  this  collection, 
in  order  that  they  might  be  able  to  examine  the  testimonies 
adduced  in  it  more  thoroughly.  The  original  presented  by 
the  papal  delegates  was  sealed  up  in  a  similar  manner  with 
the  three  volumes  of  Macarius.3 


SEC.   317.      The  Eighth  Session. 

At  the  eighth  session,  March  7,  681,  the  Emperor  re 
quested  the  two  Patriarchs,  George  of  Constantinople  and 
Macarius  of  Antioch,  to  express  themselves  on  the  two 
letters  of  Agatho  and  the  Eoman  Synod.  The  Patriarch 
George  declared  that  he  had  compared  the  patristic  passages 
therein  adduced  with  the  copies  of  his  own  patriarchal 
archives,  and  found  them  fully  in  agreement ;  and  therefore 
he  came  over  to  them  and  to  the  doctrine  (Dyothelitism) 
pronounced  in  them.4  The  same  thing  was  asserted  by  all 
the  bishops  subject  to  him,  one  after  another.  An  inter 
ruption  of  the  vote  was  occasioned  only  by  Bishop  Theodore 
of  Melitene  (on  the  borders  of  Cappadocia  and  Armenia), 
who,  declaring  himself  to  be  a  XWPLKOS  ( =  a  rustic,  not 
scientifically  educated),  presented  a  writing,  and  requested 
that  it  should  be  read.  It  contained  this  thought :  Since 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  322  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1142  sqq. 

2  We  learn  to  know  this  collection  more  exactly  at  the  tenth  session. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  327  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1150. 

4  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  331  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1154  sqq. 


THE   EIGHTH  SESSION.  157 

both  parties  brought  forward  patristic  passages  on  their  side, 
and  since  by  the  five  (Ecumenical  Synods,  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  Incarnation,  no  number  was  determined  except  the  duality 
of  natures  and  the  unity  of  the  person,  they  ought  to  stand 
fast  here,  and  neither  side  make  the  other  heretical,  whether 
they  teach  two  energies  and  wills  or  only  one.1  To  a 
question  of  the  Emperor,  Bishop  Theodore  declared  that  the 
Abbot  Stephen  of  Antioch,  the  disciple  and  most  zealous 
friend  of  Macarius,  had  delivered  this  writing  to  him,  and 
that,  besides,  the  Bishops  Peter  of  Nicomedia,  Solomon  of 
Claneus,  and  Anthony  of  Hypsepa  (in  Asia),  with  five  clerics 
of  Constantinople,  had  taken  part  in  the  composition  of  it. 
After  the  disavowal  and  acclamation  was  over,  these  three 
bishops  and  five  clerics  declared  the  statement  of  Theodore 
in  respect  to  them  to  be  an  untruth,  since  the  writing 
in  question  had  been  prepared  without  their  knowledge ; 
and  the  Ernperor  required  them,  as  they  had  come  under 
suspicion,  to  present  a  written  declaration  of  faith  at  the 
next  session. 

The  Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople  then  prayed  the 
Emperor  to  be  allowed  to  restore  the  name  of  the  former 
Pope  Vitalian  to  the  diptychs,  from  which  he  had  been 
recently  struck  out,  on  account  of  the  late  arrival  of  the 
Eoman  legate,  on  the  proposal  of  Theodore  of  Constantinople 
and  Macarius  of  Antioch  (see  sec.  312).  When  the  Emperor 
immediately  gave  his  assent,  the  Synod  exclaimed :  "  Long 
live  (many  years  to)  the  preserver  of  the  orthodox  faith,  to 
the  new  Constantine  the  Great,  to  the  new  Theodosius  the 
Great,  to  the  new  Marcian,  to  the  new  Justinian  many 
years.  We  are  SoOXot  of  the  Emperor.  To  the  orthodox 
Pope  Agatho  of  Eome  many  years,  to  the  orthodox  Patri 
arch  George  many  years,  to  the  holy  Senate  (the  imperial 
Council)  many  years  ! "  At  the  wish  of  the  Synod,  the 
Emperor  requested  the  Patriarch  Macarius  of  Antioch  to  give 
a  more  definite  explanation  of  his  faith ;  and,  whilst  several 
bishops  of  the  Antiochene  patriarchate  publicly  declared  for 
Dyothelitism,  Macarius  renewed  his  opposition  to  the  doc 
trine  of  two  wills  in  Christ.  The  Emperor  now  caused  to 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  339  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1159. 


158  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

be  brought  forward  the  three  collections  of  patristic  testi 
monies  presented  by  Macarius,  which  had  been  sealed  up, 
and  Macarius  acknowledged  that  they  had  remained  without 
falsification.  Before,  however,  they  were  read  and  examined, 
Macarius  put  forth  his  view  in  a  short  formula  of  confession, 
in  which  he  repeated  the  doctrine  of  Chalcedon  with  the 
addition  of  one  will,  because  there  could  be  in  Christ  no  sin 
and  no  sinful  ( =  human)  will.  As  he  at  the  same  time 
referred  to  a  lengthy  confession,  already  drawn  up  by  him  in 
writing,  that  had  also  to  be  read.1 

This  confession  bears,  in  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  the  super 
scription  :  "  Ecthesis  or  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Heresiarch 
Macarius,"  and  it  unfolds  with  considerable  fulness  the 
orthodox  doctrines  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the 
Eucharist.  In  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarna 
tion,  in  particular,  those  points  are  also  brought  forward  of 
which  Dyothelitism  is  the  consequence,  namely,  that  the 
Logos  took  from  Mary  a  flesh  quickened  by  the  ^rv^rj  \OJIKTJ 
and  voepa ;  that  the  difference  of  the  natures  (77  Siacfropa  TWV 
(f)va-ea)v)  was  not  taken  away  by  their  ei/oxrt?  in  Christ,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  that  the  peculiarity  (ZStor?;?)  of  each  nature 
was  preserved  in  the  unity  of  the  person.  That  which  pre 
vented  Macarius  from  advancing  from  these  propositions  to 
the  orthodox  doctrine  was  the  spectre  of  Nestorianism.  The 
admission  of  two  wills  and  energies,  he  thought,  would  have 
for  its  inevitable  consequence  the  rending  of  the  one  Christ 
in  two.  He  is  right  when,  in  opposition  to  all  Nestorianism, 
he  holds  fast  to  the  proposition:  "All  godlike  and  all  manlike 
actions  went  forth  from  one  and  the  same  Christ "  ;  but  he 
concludes  from  this  erroneously  and  inconsequently  the  pia 
evepyeia  QeavSpiictf.  He  is  right  when  he  denies  the 
possibility  of  admitting  two  self-contradictory  wills  in  Christ, 
but  he  then  wrongly  rejects  the  duality  of  the  wills  generally. 
We  can  see  that  all  the  explanations  which  Sophronius  had 
long  ago  given  on  the  subject  were  by  him  not  known  or 
ignored.  The  principal  proposition  in  his  confession  runs : 
"  Christ  has  worked  ov  KCLTO,  Oebv  TO,  Oeia,  ouS'  av  Kara 
avOpcoirov  ra  dv6p(t)7riva,  but  the  Incarnate  God  the  Logos 
1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  350  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1167. 


THE  EIGHTH   SESSION.  159 

showed  Kaivrjv  TWO,  rr^v  OeavBpifcrjv  evepyeiav  (the  words   of 
the  Areopagite),  and  this  is  0X77  £&>o7roto?  "  (the  words  of  Cyril 
of  Alexandria :  see';  above,  sec.  292).  .  .  .   One  and  the  same 
has  worked  our  salvation,  and  one  and  the  same  has  suffered 
in   the   flesh,  and  one    and   the  same  has  worked  miracles. 
Suffering  is  a  matter  of  the  flesh,  but  this  was  not  thereby 
separated    from    the    Godhead,    although    suffering  is  not  a 
matter  of  the  Godhead"  (quite  correct,  but  here  .follows  the 
false  conclusion) :  "  the  energy  of  God  has,  although  through 
the  medium  of  our  manhood,  accomplished  all  this  through 
the  one  and  only  divine  will,  since  in  Him  (Christ)  there  was 
no  other  will  striving  against  and  opposing  His  divine  and 
powerful  will.     For  it  is  impossible  that  there  should  be  in 
the  one  and  the  same  Christ  our  God  at  the  same  time  two 
mutually  contending  or  even  similar  wills  (evavria  rj  KOI  o/juoia 
vfyea-rdvat,  6e\rj/jiaTa).     For  the  saving  doctrine  of  the  holy 
Fathers  teaches  us  that  the  flesh  of  the  Lord,  quickened  by  a 
rational  soul,  never  fulfilled  its  (f>vcriKr}  KLVTJCT^  for  itself  alone 
and  from  its  own  impulse  (/ce^pia-fievoxi  /cal  e'f  oiiceuis  0/0/1775), 
in  opposition  to  the  Logos  which  was  hypostatically  united 
with  it,  but  only  at  the  time  and  in  the  manner  and  strength 
in  which  He  as  God  willed."     This  is,  he  says,  the  doctrine 
of  the  holy  Fathers,  and  of  the  five  QEcumenical  Councils  ;  this 
he  accepted.     On  the  other  hand,  he  rejected  all  the  heresies 
from  Simon  Magus  up  to  the  present  time,  particularly  those 
of  Arius,  .  .  .  Nestorius,  Eutyches,  .  .  .   Origen,  Didymus, 
and   Evagrius,    and  those  also  whom  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod  anathematised,  namely,  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  the 
accursed  teacher  of  the  heresy  of  Maximus  (he  thus  sees  in 
the  father  of  Nestorianism  at  the  same  time  the  father  of 
Dyothelitism,  for  he  means  here  our  holy  Abbot  Maximus), 
certain  writings  of  Theodoret,  and  the  letter  to  Maris ;  finally, 
also  the  accursed  Maximus,  with  his  impious  disciples  and  his 
impious  doctrine  of  the  separation.     "  This  doctrine,"  he  pro 
ceeds,  "  our  holiest  Fathers  have  already  rejected  before  us : 
Honorius,  Sergius,  Cyrus,  and  their  successors."     The  Emperor 
Heraclius  also  condemned  the  heresy  of  the  Maximians,  and 
the  same  was  done,  by  command  of  the  previous  Emperor,  by 
the    Synod    under    Peter    of  Constantinople,  Macedonius  of 


160  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Antioch,  and  Theodore  the  administrator  of  Alexandria  (sec. 
310),  since  they  anathematised  Maxinms  and  banished  him 
with  his  impious  disciples.1 

When  Macarius,  in  answer  to  repeated  questions  from  the 
Emperor,  rejected  most  decidedly  the  doctrine  of  two  natural 
wills  and  energies,  adding  that  he  would  rather  be  torn  in 
pieces  and  cast  into  the  sea  than  admit  such  a  doctrine,  the 
Emperor  ordered  the  collections  of  the  patristic  passages  pre 
sented  by  him  to  be  read  and  examined.  The  first  passage 
was  taken  from  Athanasius  (Contra  Apollinar.  lib.  ii.  cc.  1,  2), 
proved  not  the  least  against  Dyothelitism,  and  could  only  be  so 
far  used  by  Macarius  when,  along  with  the  duality  of  wills  and 
energies,  there  seemed  to  him  to  be  introduced  a  dividing  of 
Christ.  The  passage  says,  "  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  God 
and  man,  but  not  by  the  division  of  the  Person,  but  in  indis 
soluble  union."2  Without  discussing  minutely  the  meaning  of 
this  passage,  the  Synod  explained  that  it  was  torn  from  its 
connection,  and  set  another  passage  from  c.  6  of  the  same 
book  over  against  it,  in  which  it  is  said :  The  sinful  thoughts 
(i.e.  the  evil  will  which  opposes  the  divine)  of  man  are  only 
a  consequence  of  original  sin,  but  Christ  assumed  incorrupt 
human  nature  as  it  was  before  original  sin,  therefore  His  man 
hood  was  without  evil  thoughts  (i.e.  without  a  human  will 
opposing  the  divine).3  This  declared  plainly  against  Macarius, 
and  when  the  Emperor  asked  him  why  he  had  not  brought 
this  forward,  he  replied  that  he  had  naturally  collected  only 
the  passages  which  suited  him. 

The  second  passage  was  taken  from  cc.  9  and  10  of  the 
same  treatise  of  S.  Athanasius,  and  runs  :  "  God,  who  originally 
created  man,  has  assumed  humanity,  as  it  was  originally, 
Flesh  without  carnal  desires  and  without  human  thoughts,  for 
His  will  was  only  that  of  the  Godhead  (r)  yap  QeXrjcris  deorijTos 
povrjs)."  This  appeared  to  testify  on  the  side  of  Macarius. 
But  the  Synod  placed  the  words  of  the  saint  immediately 

Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  350-358  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1167-1175. 

2  Athanasii  Opp.  ed.  Montf.  t.  i.  pt.  ii.  p.  941. 

3  In  the  collection  of  Hardouin  (but  not  in  Mansi)  the  patristic  passages  are 
suitably  made  known  by  marks  of  quotation.     But  at  p.  1178,  Hardouin  ought 
to  have  begun  these  marks  four  lines  earlier,  at  the  words,  Et  dicitis,  etc. 


THE  EIGHTH   SESSION.  161 

following  over  against  them,  in  which  it  is  said  :  "  The  new 
Adam  possessed  all  that  the  old  possessed  (therefore  also  a 
human  will),  but  from  all  that  was  sinful  HE  had  been  free,  and 
therefore  there  could  be  manifested  in  Him  the  /caQapa 
Sitcaioo-vvrj  rr??  QeoTrjros."  Athanasius  by  this  intended  only 
to  say :  "  In  the  God-man  ruled  only  the  divine  will,  and  not 
also  the  sinful  will  of  the  flesh  "  ;  but  he  does  not  deny  the 
natural  human  will  of  Christ,  rather  his  words  involve  it : 
"  that  which  was  in  the  old  Adam  was  also  in  the  new." 
Macarius  and  his  pupil  Stephen  then  had  their  attention  drawn 
to  this,  but  they  would,  even  in  the  case  of  Adam,  admit  of  no 
natural  will,  but  maintained  that,  before  the  Fall,  man  had 
been  crvvOe\r)T^  (of  like  will)  with  God.  Several  bishops  and 
also  the  papal  legates  declared  this  to  be  blasphemy,  adding : 
"  The  divine  will  was  creative  :  if  then  Adam  was  o-vvOeKrjT^ 
with  God,  he  also  created  the  world  with  Him."  We  see  that 
Macarius  interchanged  the  moral  unity  of  the  will  of  Adam 
with  the  divine  for  a  natural  unity  ;  and  inasmuch  as  he  would 
not  acknowledge  a  natural  will  in  Adam,  he  gave  his  opponents 
a  right  and  reason  to  reproach  him  with  the  folly  named. 
They  could  also  show  from  patristic  passages  that  will  is  a 
matter  of  nature,  and  that  Adam  had  a  natural  will. 

Two  other  passages  in  the  collection  of  Macarius  and 
Stephen,  taken  from  Ambrose  (Ad  Gratianum),  certainly 
spoke  of  one  will  in  Christ,  but  it  meant  the  identity  of  His 
divine  will  with  that  of  His  Father.  The  Synod  showed  this 
from  other  words  of  Ambrose,  in  which  also  it  was  said  that 
Christ  had  assumed  a  human  will,  and  a  reference  was  made 
to  this  in  the  words :  "  Not  what  I  will,  but  what  Thou 
wilt." 

One  passage  which  Macarius  had  taken  from  Dionysius 
the  Areopagite  (De  div.  nom.  c.  2,  sec.  6  ;  see  above,  sec.  291) 
spoke  of  the  "  human  God-working  "  (dvOpcoirivrj  Oeovpyia)  of 
Christ,  and  thus  seemed  to  point  to  a  mixture  of  the  divine 
and  human  energy;  but  the  Synod  directly  ordered  the  words 
of  the  Areopagite  immediately  following  to  be  read,  and 
these  showed  that  he  quite  distinguished  the  operation  of  the 
Logos  from  this  dvOpcoTrlvrj  Oeovpyla,  and  thus  made  two  kinds 
of  operations  in  Christ,  and  that  by  the  latter,  the  av 

V.  — II 


162  HISTOKY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Oeovpyia,  he  understood  the  human  operation  of  Christ  which 
allows  the  divine  to  shine  through  (see  sec.  291).  The  eighth 
session  was  closed  by  the  reading  of  a  passage  from  the  dis 
course  of  S.  Chrysostom  on  "  Father,  if  it  be  possible,"  etc., 
in  which  he  certainly  speaks  of  one  will,  but,  as  above  with 
S.  Ambrose,  of  the  unity  of  will  of  the  Son  with  the  Father. 
The  Synod  sets  forth  another  fragment  from  the  same  sermon, 
in  which  the  discourse  is  of  the  human  affections  of  Christ,  of 
His  hungering,  eating,  sleeping,  and  of  His  (human)  wish  not 
to  die  (transeat  calix  iste).1 

SEC.   318.  Ninth  and   Tenth  Sessions. 

In  the  ninth  session,  on  March  8,  the  reading  was 
continued;  and  then  came,  in  the  series,  a  passage  from 
the  treatise  of  S.  Athanasius,  irepl  rpidSos  ical  crapfca)(reQ)s 
Aoyov.  We  know  this  treatise  under  the  title,  De  Incar- 
natione  contra  Arianos ;  and  it  may  surprise  us  that  Macarius 
should  borrow  a  passage  from  it  (c.  21)  which,  in  plain 
words,  speaks  of  two  wills,  which  came  out  distinctly  in  the 
cry  :  "  Not  My  will  be  done,  but  Thine."  But  Macarius 
must  have  transformed  this  as  if,  in  the  opinion  of 
Athanasius,  Christ  had  spoken  here,  not  in  propria  persona, 
but  ex  mente  of  His  adherents.  But  the  Synod  had  the 
following  sentence  read,  which,  in  opposition  to  this 
assumption,  ascribes  the  recusare  of  the  cup  to  the  proper 
human  will  of  Christ ;  and  Bishop  Basil  of  Cortina  remarked 
that  the  passage  of  S.  Athanasius  adduced  by  Macarius  spoke 
clearly  against  him  and  of  two  wills. 

Before  they  went  on  to  further  reading,  Abbot  Stephen, 
the  disciple  of  Macarius,  appealed  to  Gregory  of  Nazianzus, 
who  spoke  of  a  "  quite  deified  "  will  of  Christ.  But  Bishop 
Basil,  just  mentioned,  replied  rightly  that  the  predicate 
"  deified"  could  only  refer  to  the  human  will  of  Christ,  and 
not  to  His  will  which  was  already  in  itself  divine,  and  there^ 
fore  it  was  a  testimony  in  favour  of  Dyothelitism. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  359-378  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1175-1190.  Cf.  the  author's 
Chrysostomuspostille,  3te  Aufl.  S.  217,  where  he  has  given  the  homily  of 
Chrysostom  here  referred  to. 


NINTH  AND  TENTH  SESSIONS,  163 

An  earlier  fellow-disciple  of  Stephen,  the  monk  George, 
now  expressed  his  conviction,  in  answer  to  the  Emperor,  as 
follows  :  "  The  assertions  of  Stephen  (and  Macarius)  are  in 
conflict  with  the  Fathers."  Then  a  passage  from  Cyril,  in  the 
collection  of  Macarius,  was  read,  in  which  he  seemed  to  teach  a 
transformation  of  the  human  will  of  Christ  into  a 


An  expression  of  Cyril's,  which  was  presented  to  the 
Synod,  testified,  however,  to  the  two  wills,  and  the  Synod 
now  gave  the  sentence  :  "  You  two,  you  Stephen  and  your 
master  Macarius,  have,  by  your  collection,  not  proved  Mono- 
thelitism,  but  have  brought  forward  passages  which  speak 
plainly  of  two  wills,  although  you  have  mutilated  them. 
Because  you  are  proved  to  have  falsified  the  dogma  and 
the  teaching  of  the  Fathers,  and  also  to  have  adhered  to  the 
statements  of  heretics,  we  depose  you  from  all  priestly 
dignity  and  function.  Those,  on  the  contrary,  who  amend 
their  previous  error,  and  agree  with  us  in  the  faith,  shall 
remain  in  their  offices,  and  shall  present  the  promised  written 
confessions  at  the  next  session."  By  this  were  meant  Theo 
dore  of  Melitene  and  the  bishops  and  clerics  denounced  by 
him,  whose  case  was  considered  before  (p..  157),  and  who, 
at  the  beginning  of  this  session,  had  asked  and  obtained  per 
mission  to  appear  again.  The  session  closed  with  acclama 
tions  in  honour  of  the  Emperor,  and  to  the  execration  of 
Stephen  and  Macarius.1 

At  the  tenth  session,  March  18,  681,  the  rich  collection 
of  patristic  and  heretical  passages  for  and  against  Dyothelitism 
presented  by  the  Koman  envoys  was  unsealed,  read,  compared 
with  the  copies  of  the  works  quoted  which  were  found  in  the 
patriarchal  archives  at  Constantinople,  and  discovered  to  be 
correct  and  unfalsified.  These  were,  in  the  first  series,  ex 
tracts  from  Leo  the  Great,  Ambrose,  Chrysostom,  Athanasius, 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  Epiphanius,  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus,  pseudo  -  Justin  (see  p.  107),  the  Emperor 
Justinian,  Archbishop  Ephnem  of  Antioch,  Anastasius  of 
Antioch,  and  John  of  Scythopolis. 

The  second  shorter  division  contained  extracts  from 
1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  378-387  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1191-1198. 


164  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

writings  of  heretics  :  Themistius,  Anthimus,  Severus,  Theo- 
dosius,  etc.,  in  order  to  show  that  Monoth elitism  had  been 
already  held  by  these  false  teachers,  and  had  already  been 
condemned  in  them.  We  recall  only  that  the  Lateran 
Synod  of  A.D.  649  made  a  similar  collection  in  two  parts, 
and  embodied  it  in  their  Acts  (see  p.  107f.).  The  present 
naturally  has  much  in  common  with  the  earlier  collection, 
but  is  more  extensive,  and  gives  the  particular  passages  in 
proof  with  less  abruptness,  but  more  in  connection  with 
what  went  before  and  followed. 

At  the  conclusion,  the  Eoman  legates  wished  that  an 
expression  of  the  heretic  Apollinaris  from  a  manuscript 
in  the  patriarchal  library,  which  was  lacking  in  their 
collection,  should  be  read.  It  was  done,  and  the  passage 
showed  that  Apollinaris  had  taught  only  one  energy  in 
Christ. 

After  this  was  finished,  Bishop  Theodore  of  Melitene  and 
his  associates  presented  the  confession  of  faith  required  of 
them,  which  declared  Dyothelitism  decisively,  and  their  agree 
ment  with  the  doctrinal  epistle  sent  by  Pope  Agatho.1 

SEC.  319.  Eleventh  and  Twelfth  Sessions. 

At  the  request  of  the  monk  Gregory,  who  was  representat 
ive  of  the  patriarchal  administrator  of  Jerusalem,  there  was 
read,  at  the  eleventh  session,  March  20,  6 81,  the  celebrated 
synodal  letter  of  S.  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem  to  Sergius  of 
Constantinople,  to  which  we  referred  above  in  sec.  297.2 
The  Emperor  then  asked  the  papal  legates  what  further  had 
now  to  be  done,  and  they  wished  that  some  of  the  writings 
composed  by  Macarius  and  his  disciple  Stephen,  which  were 
in  the  patriarchal  archives  of  Constantinople,  should  be 
communicated.  The  Emperor  ordered  them  to  be  brought 
by  the  deacon  George,  the  keeper  of  the  archives  (-^apro- 
<f>v\a!;) ;  and  they  were  : 

(a)  A  letter  of  Macarius  to  the  Emperor,  which  was 
already  known  to  the  Synod  from  the  previous  transactions 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  387-455  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1198-1252. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  462-509  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1257-1295. 


ELEVENTH  AND  TWELFTH   SESSIONS.  165 

(a  copy   of    the   confession   of    Macarius    addressed    to    the 
Emperor;  see  p.  158); 

(b)  A  Xo7o?  7Tpoa-(f)cov7)TLKo^  of  the  same  to  the  Emperor, 
which,  however,  he  had  not  received ; 

(c)  A  letter  of  Macarius  to  the  priest  and  monk  Luke 
in   Africa,  in  which  the   Dyothelites  are  described  as   new 
Manichseans ; 

(d)  A  further  treatment  of  the  same  subject. 

Some  pieces  were,  at  the  request  of  the  Synod,  read 
entire,  others  only  partially,  the  objectionable  passages 
brought  out  of  them,  and  compared  with  utterances  of 
acknowledged  heretics.  In  one  of  these  passages,  Macarius 
reckoned  the  departed  Pope  Honorius  as  decidedly  belonging 
to  the  Monothelites.  At  the  close  the  Emperor  com 
municated  to  the  Synod  that  business  prevented  his  per 
sonally  taking  part  at  the  further  sessions ;  but  the  two 
Patriarchs,  Constaiitine  and  Anastasius,  as  well  as  the  two 
ex-consuls,  Polyeuctus  and  Peter,  should  be  present,  in  his 
stead,  at  the  transactions  of  the  (Ecumenical  Council.  The 
principal  matter  was,  however,  transacted.1 

Immediately  after  the  opening  of  the  twelfth  Synod, 
March  22,  681,  an  imperial  court  official,  the  patrician 
John,  by  commission  of  his  master,  brought  over  several 
further  documents  which  Macarius  had  presented  to  the 
Emperor,  but  which  he  had  not  read.  The  first  of  these 
was  only  another  copy  of  the  Xtfyo?  Trpoa-tywvrjTiKos  read  in 
the  previous  session.  In  the  appendix  to  this  there  was 
found  the  relation  of  several  Isaurian  bishops  which  Macarius 
had  sent  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.2  Being  unim 
portant,  they  were  not  read  in  full.  The  manuscripts  of 
Macarius  contained  a  series  of  other  pieces  known  to  us : 

(1)  The  letter  of  the  Patriarch  Sergius  to  Bishop  Cyrus 
of  Phasis  in  Colchis  ; 3 

(2)  The  alleged  letter  of  Mennas  to  Pope  Vigilius,  found 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  510-518  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1295-1303. 

2  Isauria,    until  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century,    belonged   to  the 
patriarchate   of  Antioch.     The  Emperor,  Leo   the  Isaurian,   was  the  first  to 
unite  it  with  Constantinople. 

3  See  above,  sec.  292  ;  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  526  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1310. 


166  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

to  be  spurious  at  the  third  session,  which,  on  the  repeated 
protests  of  the  papal  legates,  was  not  read ; 

(3)  The  Acts  of  the  seventh  and  eighth  session  of  the 
(Ecumenical  Council,  at  which  the  imperial  representatives 
(Judices,  see  p.  153)  and  the  Synod  remarked  that  the  two 
letters    contained   therein   of  Pope  Vigilius  to   the   Emperor 
Justinian  and   the  Empress   Theodora  were  later  insertions 
(see  pp.  154  and  170).     Next  followed: 

(4)  The   letter   of   Sergius   to   Pope   Honorius   (p.   22); 
and 

(5)  The  first  letter  of  Honorius  to  Sergius  (p.  27). 

In  order  to  thoroughly  understand  the  case,  these  docu 
ments  presented  by  Macarius  were,  as  far  as  possible,  com 
pared  with  the  originals,  which  were  found  in  the  patriarchal 
archives,  and  Macarius  himself  was  asked  whether  the  letters 
of  his  which  were  found  there  really  proceeded  from  him.  The 
deputies  of  the  Synod  met  him  in  a  chamber  of  the  Patriarch's 
abode,  and  he  acknowledged  the  genuineness  of  all  the  docu 
ments.  Moreover,  the  comparison  of  some  of  them  with  the 
originals  in  the  patriarchal  archives  led  only  to  favourable 
results.  Finally,  the  imperial  representatives  asked  whether 
Macarius,  if  he  repented,  could  again  be  restored  to  his  dig 
nity  ;  and  after  the  Synod  had  answered  this  in  the  negative, 
the  bishops  of  the  Antiochene  patriarchate  petitioned  that  the 
plenipotentiaries  of  the  Emperor  would  prevail  with  their 
master,  so  that  another  bishop  might  be  appointed  for  Antioch. 
They  promised  this,  and  requested  the  Synod  to  give  its 
judgment,  at  the  next  session,  on  Sergius,  Honorius,  and 
Sophronius.1 

SEC.  320.   Thirteenth  Session. 

This  was  done  in  the  thirteenth  session,  March  28,  681, 
and  the  Synod  declared :  "  After  we  had  read  the  doctrinal 
letters  of  Sergius  of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus  of  Phasis  and  to 
Pope  Honorius,  as  well  as  the  letter  of  the  latter  to  Sergius, 
we  find  that  these  documents  are  quite  foreign  to  the  apos 
tolic  dogmas,  also  to  the  declarations  of  the  holy  Councils, 
1  Mansi,7.c.  pp.  518-550;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1303-1327. 


THIRTEENTH   SESSION.  167 

an.d  all  the  Fathers  of  repute,  and  follow  the  false  teachings 
of  the  heretics  ;  therefore  we  entirely  reject  them,  and  execrate 
them  as  hurtful  to  the  soul  (hasque  invenientes  omnino  alienas 
existere  db  apostolicis  dogmatibus  et  a  definitionibus  sanctorum 
conciliorum  et  cunctorum  probabilium  Patrum,  sequi  vero  falsas 
doctrinas  hcereticorum,eas  omnimodo  abjicimus,et  tamquam  animce 
noxias  exsecramur).  But  the  names  of  these  men  must  also 
be  thrust  forth  from  the  Church,  namely,  that  of  Sergius,  who 
first  wrote  on  this  impious  doctrine ;  further,  that  of  Cyrus 
of  Alexandria,  of  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter  of  Constantinople, 
and  of  Theodore  of  Pharan,  all  of  whom  Pope  Agatho  rejected 
in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor.  We  anathematise  them  all. 
And  along  with  them,  it  is  our  unanimous  decree  that  there 
shall  be  expelled  from  the  Church  and  anathematised,  Hono- 
rius,  formerly  Pope  of  Old  Eome,  because  we  found  in  his 
letter  to  Sergius  that  in  all  respects  he  followed  his  view  and 
confirmed  his  impious  doctrines  (Cum  his  vero  simul  projici  a 
sancta  Dei  catholica  ecclesia  simulque  anathematizari  prcevid- 
imus  et  Honorium,  qui  fuerat  Papa  antique?  Eomcc,  eo  quod 
invenimus  per  scripta,  quce  db  eo  facta  sunt  ad  Sergium,  quiet  in' 
omnibus  ejus  mentem  secutus  est,  impia  dogmata  confirmavit).  We 
have  also  examined  the  synodal  letter  of  Sophronius,  and  have 
found  it  in  accordance  with  the  true  faith  and  the  apostolic 
and  patristic  doctrines.  Therefore  we  received  it  as  useful  to 
the  Catholic  and  apostolic  Church,  and  decreed  that  his  name 
should  be  put  upon  the  diptychs  of  the  holy  Church." 

If  we  examine  this  decree  more  closely,  it  is  clear  that 
the  Synod  could  appeal  to  Agatho  only  for  the  anathema  on 
Sergius,  Cyrus,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  Peter,  and  Theodore  of  Pharan, 
for  only  of  these  had  he  spoken  with  condemnation  (p.  144). 
The  anathema  on  Honorius  was  the  exclusive  act  of  the 
Council,  and  at  this  place,  at  least,  was  not  influenced  by  an 
appeal  to  Agatho.  Certainly  the  Council  expressed  itself 
differently,  as  if  Pope  Agatho  had  taken  the  lead  in  the  con 
demnation  of  Honorius ;  so  particularly  in  the  letter  of  the 
Council  to  Agatho,  in  which  it  is  said  that,  in  accordance 
with  the  sentence  previously  given  by  the  Pope,  they  had 
anathematised  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  Honorius,  etc.,  etc. 
(see  p.  188).  As  .Pope  Agatho  had  condemned  the  Mono- 


168  HISTORY   OF  THE    COUNCILS. 

thelites  in  general,  the  Council  assumed  that  Honorius  was 
also  among  them,  although  Agatho  had  not  at  all  mentioned 
his  name.1 

The  imperial  Judices  (representatives)  hereupon  declared : 
"  The  Council  has  responded  to  our  request  (at  the  twelfth 
session),  that  they  would  give  judgment  on  Sergius,  Honorius, 
and  Sophronius ;  but  there  is  also  a  question  about  Pyrrhus, 
Paul,  and  Peter  of  Constantinople,  as  well  as  about  Cyrus  of 
Alexandria  and  Theodore  of  Pharan,  therefore  let  the  deacon 
George  bring  the  writings  of  these  men  from  the  patriarchal 
archives,  so  that  we  may  be  able  to  gain  an  insight  into  them. 
With  regard,  however,  to  the  petition  (also  presented  at  the 
twelfth  session)  for  the  filling  again  of  the  see  of  Antioch,  the 
Emperor  has  commanded  that  a  ijnjfaapa  (a  motion  carried 
by  a  majority  of  votes)  be  taken."  The  bishops  replied 
that  the  presentation  of  the  writings  of  Pyrrhus,  etc.,  was 
superfluous,  because  their  doctrine  of  one  will  was  univer 
sally  known,  and  Pope  Agatho  had  already  exposed  their 
error,  had  shown  their  agreement  in  opinion  with  Sergius, 
'and  had  condemned  them  in  his  letter.2  There  were  now 
read  aloud : 

(1)  The  first  letter  of  Cyrus  of  Phasis  to  Sergius  (see 
above,  p.  12) ; 

(2)  The  much  more  important  second  letter  of  Cyrus  to 
Sergius,  after  his  elevation  to  the  see  of  Alexandria,  in  refer 
ence  to  the  union  brought  about  by  him  there,  communicating 
the  nine  Kephalaia  of  union  (see  above,  p.  18  ff.) ; 

(3)  Passages  from  the  Logos  of  Theodore  of   Pharan  to 
the  former  Bishop  Sergius,  of  Arsinoe,  in  Egypt,  containing 
the  doctrine  of  one  energy  and  one  will ; 

(4)  The  dogmatic   tome  of  Pyrrhus  against   Sophronius, 
asserting  that  Cyrus  (in  tce(pd\aiov  7),  in   the  passage  of  the 
Areopagite,  /caivr;  6eav$pi/crj  evepyeia,  had  not  deceitfully,  but 
merely  as  explaining  the  sense,  put  fiia  instead  of  /caivrj ; 

(5)  A  letter  of   Paul  of   Constantinople   to    the   former 

1  Added  to  the  new  edition. 

2  Walch,  I.e.  S.  332,  asserts  that  only  the  Roman  legates  regarded  the  reading 
as  superfluous.     This  is  untrue  and  invidious.     The  Acts  say  expressly,  r\  a-yia 
o-vvoSos  elirev.     Mansi,  I.e.  p.  557;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1333. 


FKOM   THE  FOURTEENTH   TO   THE  SEVENTEENTH   SESSION.      169 

Pope,  Theodore,  from  which  a  passage  with  a  Monothelite 
sound  is  made  prominent ; 1 

(6.)  A  letter  of  the  Patriarch  Peter  of  Constantinople  to 
Pope  Vitalian  (see  p.  135),  in  which  different  patristic  pas 
sages  were  brought  forward.  As  the  papal  legates  declared 
these  to  be  mutilated,  the  reading  of  the  letter  was  not 
further  continued.  The  Judices  were  satisfied  with  the  proof 
alleged,  and  drew  attention  to  the  successors  of  Peter,  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Thomas,  John,  and  Constantine. 
Of  these,  too,  letters  and  synodal  epistles  were  presented  (they 
are  not  received  into  the  Acts),  but  the  Synod  found  in  them 
nothing  contradictory  to  the  orthodox  doctrine,  and  George, 
the  keeper  of  the  archives  at  Constantinople,  finally  declared 
that  he  had  discovered  in  the  archives  no  document  which 
could  make  the  bishops  named  suspected  of  Monothelitism. 
It  was  therefore  resolved  to  retain  their  names  in  the  diptychs. 
Finally,  the  keeper  George  made  over  all  further  documents 
found  in  the  patriarchal  archives,  letters  and  confessions  of 
several,  among  them  the  Latin  original  of  the  second  letter  of 
Honorius,  from  which  some  fragments  were  now  communicated 
(see  above,  p.  49).  Further,  there  was  a  fragment  from  a 
letter  of  the  Patriarch  Pyrrhus  to  Pope  John,  and  something 
else  read,  and  the  Synod  caused  all  these  documents,  even  the 
letters  of  Pope  Honorius,  to  be  burnt,  as  hurtful  to  the  soul.2 


SEC.  321.  From  the  Fourteenth  to  the  Seventeenth  Session. 

At  the  fourteenth  session,  May  5,  681,  the  new  Patriarch, 
Theophanes  of  Antioch,  assisted,  and  the  examination  of  the 
genuineness  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council,  begun 
at  the  twelfth  session,  was  now  resumed,  in  order  to  discuss 
the  matter  thoroughly.  Hitherto  the  Synod  had  used  only 
two  copies  of  the  Acts,  taken  from  the  patriarchal  archives, 
namely:  (1)  a  parchment  MS.  in  two  books;  and  (2)  a  paper 
MS.,  which  contained  only  the  seventh  session  of  that 
Synod.  The  keeper  of  the  archives,  George  of  Constantinople, 
now  presented  a  third  codex,  which  in  the  meantime  he  had 

1  It  is  the  same  letter  which  we  fully  considered  at  p.  93  f. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  550-582  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1327-1354. 


170     .  HISTOEY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

found  also  in  the  patriarchal  archives,  and  swore  upon  the 
Holy  Gospels  that  neither  himself  nor  any  other,  with  his 
knowledge,  had  made  any  alteration  in  these  three  MSS.  The 
bishops  then  compared  these  three  MSS.  with  one  another,  and 
with  others  at  their  disposal,  and  it  was  found : 

(a)  That  the  two  first  agreed  with  one  another,  and  uni 
formly  contained  the  pretended  letter  of  Mennas  to  Vigilius, 
and  the  two  books  of  the  latter  to  Justinian  and  Theodora ; 

(b)  That,  on   the   other   hand,  in   the   newly  discovered 
third  MS.  these  documents  were  lacking. 

The  Synod  now  gave  the  sentence :  "  These  additions,  as 
the  papal  legates  correctly  remarked  before,  were  not  written 
at  the  time  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council,  but  were  inserted 
by  a  later  hand,  and  in  the  first  book  of  the  parchment  MS. 
three  quaternions,  in  which  was  the  letter  of  Mennas ;  and 
in  the  second  book,  between  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth 
quaternions,  four  unpaged  leaves,  containing  the  two  pretended 
letters  of  Vigilius.  In  the  same  manner,  the  second  codex 
had  been  falsified  in  the  heretical  interest.  These  additions 
must  be  quashed  in  both  MSS.,  and  marked  with  an  obelus,  and 
the  falsifiers  smitten  with  anathema"  (cf.  vol.  iv.  sec.  267). 

In  order  to  indicate  the  persons  and  the  party  who  had 
dared  to  falsify  the  documents,  Bishop  Macrobius  of  Seleucia 
in  Isauria  related :  "  The  Magister  Militum  Philip  made  over 
to  me  a  MS.  of  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Council. 
I  found  that  it  was  falsified  in  regard  to  the  seventh  session, 
and  I  learnt  from  Philip  that  he  had  lent  it  to  the  Abbot 
Stephen,  the  friend  of  the  Patriarch  Macarius,  and  that  the 
forged  passages  were  from  the  hand  of  the  monk  George, 
another  scholar  of  Macarius.  Upon  this  I  visited  my 
Patriarch  Macarius  himself,  found  the  monk  George  with 
him  writing,  and  satisfied  myself  by  multiplied  comparison 
that  he  had  also  written  that."  The  monk  George,  who  was 
already  at  the  Synod,  and  now  was  asked  for  an  explanation, 
told  them  :  "  When  Macarius  and  Theodore  of  Constantinople 
had  negotiations  together  respecting  the  faith,  there  were 
MSS.  which  contained  the  letters  of  Vigilius,  brought  from 
the  patriarchal  archives  of  Constantinople,  copied  by  us,  and 
sent  by  Macarius  and  Stephen  to  the  Emperor.  Soon  after- 


FROM  THE  FOURTEENTH  TO   THE   SEVENTEENTH   SESSION.     171 

wards  the  Magister  Militum  Philip,  already  mentioned,  showed 
to  Abbot  Stephen  a  MS.  belonging  to  him  of  the  fifth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  and  asked  whether  it  was  good. 
Stephen  replied,  there  was  something  lacking  in  it ;  and,  at 
the  request  of  Philip  and  at  the  command  of  Stephen,  I  was 
required  to  insert  the  letters  in  question  of  Vigilius.  The 
like  happened  with  all  the  other  copies  which  Macarius  and 
Stephen  could  bring  forward.  But  what  was  the  case  with 
respect  to  a  Latin  MS.  which  they  bought,  the  priest 
and  Latin  grammarian  Constantine  would  know  better." 
At  the  request  of  the  Synod,  the  latter  asserted :  "  At  the 
time  of  the  Patriarch  Paul,  Bishop  Fortunius  (Fortunatus) 
came  from  Carthage  (a  Monothelite;  see  p.  90)  hither  to 
Constantinople,  and  the  question  arose  whether  he  should 
have  his  seat  before  or  after  the  other  metropolitans  present. 
As  then  the  Patriarch  Paul  sought  in  the  library  for  the  Acts 
of  the  fifth  Council,  in  order  to  learn  from  them  the  order  of 
sitting,  he  found,  among  other  things,  a  Latin  translation  of 
the  synodal  Acts,  and  commissioned  me  to  compare  this  MS. 
in  regard  to  the  seventh  session  with  the  authentic  copy  and 
to  supply  what  was  lacking,  in  union  with  the  deacon  Sergius, 
who  was  a  good  writer.  What  we  then  added  were  the  two 
letters  of  Pope  Vigilius  translated  from  the  Greek  into  the 
Latin."  l 

This  statement  was  confirmed  by  the  deacon  Sergius 
mentioned,  who  was  also  present,  and  the  bishops  exclaimed : 
"  Anathema  to  the  pretended  letters  of  Mennas  and  Vigilius .; 
anathema  to  the  forger  of  Acts ;  anathema  to  all  who  teach 
one  will  and  one  energy  in  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  who  is 
One  of  the  Trinity  !  Eternal  honour  to  the  four  holy  Councils ; 
eternal  honour  to  the  holy  fifth  Council ;  many  years  to  the 
Emperor  Constantine  ! " 

Finally  was  read  a  discourse  of  S.  Athanasius  in  a  MS. 
brought  by  the  Cypriote  bishops  as  proof  for  Dyothelitism,  and 
information  was  given  by  Bishop  Domitius  of  Prusias,  that 
the  priest  and  monk  Polychronius,  an  adherent  of  Macarius 
of  Antioch,  had  seduced  many  of  the  people  to  heresy.2  The 

1  Cf.  vol.  iv.  p.  291. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  583-602  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1355-1370. 


172  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

examination  of  his  affair  was  put  off  to  the  next  session  ; 
before,  however,  this  took  place,  the  honour  was  done  to  the 
papal  legates,  that  one  of  them,  Bishop  John  of  Portus,  was 
allowed  to  celebrate  divine  service  in  a  solemn  manner, 
according  to  the  Latin  rite,  in  the  Church  of  S.  Sophia  at 
Constantinople,  in  presence  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Patriarch, 
at  the  Easter  Festival,  (April  14)  681.  At  the  same  time, 
the  Emperor  reduced  the  tax  which  the  Popes  had  to  dis 
charge  at  their  ordination,  did  away  with  the  practice  according 
to  which  the  imperial  exarchs  of  Ravenna  claimed  to  confirm 
the  papal  election,  and  required  that  the  petitions  in  reference 
to  this  should  henceforth  be  laid  before  the  Emperor  himself.1 

After  the  close  of  the  festal  days  of  Easter,  the  Poly- 
chronius  mentioned  above  was,  at  the  fifteenth  session,  on 
April  26,  681,  placed  before  the  Synod.  He  engaged  to 
prove  the  truth  of  his  teaching  in  this  way,  he  would  lay  his 
written  confession  of  faith  on  a  dead  person,  and  would 
thereby  call  him  back  to  life.  If  this  did  not  succeed,  then 
the  Council  and  the  Emperor  might  deal  with  him  at  their 
pleasure.  His  confession  of  faith,  drawn  up  in  the  form  of  a 
letter  to  the  Emperor,  declared  that  the  doctrine  of  one  will 
and  of  one  divine  -  human  energy  had  been  revealed  to  him 
twice  in  a  vision.  The  Judices  as  well  as  the  Synod  gave 
permission  that  he  should  make  the  proposed  trial  outside 
the  palace  in  the  open  air,  and  in  the  presence  of  them  and 
of  the  people.  A  corpse  was  brought  on  a  bier.  Poly- 
chronius  laid  his  confession  upon  it,  and  for  two  whole  hours 
whispered  all  kinds  of  things  into  its  ears  without  producing 
the  least  effect.  The  people  present  exclaimed  :  "  Anathema 
to  the  new  Simon  (Magus) ;  anathema  to  the  seducer  of  the 
people  ! "  The  Judices  and  bishops  returned  into  the  hall  of 
session  ;  and,  after  the  Synod  had  again  exhorted  Polychronius 
in  vain  to  the  acceptance  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  he  was 
deposed  from  his  .dignity  and  his  office  as  priest,  and  along 
with  Macarius  and  Stephen  smitten  with  anathema.2 

In  the  sixteenth  session,  on  August   9,   the  priest  Con- 

1  Anastasii  Vitse  Pontificum,  in  Vita  AgatJionis,  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.   168  ; 
Pagi,  adann.  681,  14,  15. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  602-611  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1370-1378. 


THE   EIGHTEENTH   SESSION.  173 

stantine  of  Apamea  in  Syria  prayed  for  admission,  and  laid 
before  the  Council  with  great  personal  feeling  a  mediation 
doctrine  invented  by  himself,  to  the  effect :  "  That  there  were 
two  energies,  since  these  belonged  to  the  properties  of  the 
two  natures  of  Christ ;  but  there  was  in  Christ  only  one 
personal  will,  that  of  the  Logos,  and  with  this  a  natural  will, 
the  human  ;  and  the  latter  the  Lord  had  drawn  out,  when 
HE  drew  out  flesh  and  blood  on  the  cross  "  (an  entirely  new 
heresy,  which  denies  the  perpetuity  of  the  God-man).  He 
thought  that  this  was  also  the  doctrine  of  Macarius  ;  but  the 
Synod  exclaimed :  "  That  is  Manichsean  and  Apollinarian : 
Anathema  to  the  new  Manichsean;  anathema  to  the  new 
Apollinarian  !  "  He  was  expelled. 

As  they  were  about  to  proceed  to  the  customary  acclama 
tions  and  anathemas,  the  Patriarch  George  of  Constantine 
wished  that,  in  the  latter,  they  would  pass  over  the  names  of 
his  predecessors,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  and  Paul ;  but  he  was  out 
voted,  and  the  Synod  exclaimed :  "  Many  years  to  the 
Emperor,  .  .  .  many  years  to  the  Eoman  Pope  Agatho, 
many  years  to  the  Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople,  many 
years  to  the  Patriarch  Theophanes  of  Antioch,  many  years  to 
the  orthodox  Council  and  Senate  ;  anathema  to  the  heretic 
Sergius,  to  the  heretic  Cyrus,  to  the  heretic  Honorius,  to  the 
heretics  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  Peter,  Macarius,  Stephen,  Poly- 
chronius,  Apergius  of  Perge,  and  to  all  heretics  and  their 
friends !  "  The  drawing  up  of  a  declaration  of  faith  was  to 
be  reserved  for  the  next,  the  seventeenth  session.1 

This  did  not  take  place  until  September  11,  and  the  short 
minutes  of  the  session  are  extant  only  in  Latin.  The  decree 
of  faith,  which  had  in  the  meantime  been  drawn  up,  was  read, 
and  was  adopted  in  the  following  and  last  session.2 

SEC.  322.    The  Eighteenth  Session. 

At  the  eighteenth  session,  on  September  16,  681,  the 
Emperor  was  again  personally  present,  and,  at  his  command, 
a  notary  read  the  full  decree  of  faith,  which  was  subscribed 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  611-622  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  1378-1386. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  622  sq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1387  sq. 


174  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

by  the  papal  legates,  by  all  the  bishops  and  episcopal  repre 
sentatives,  174  in  number,  and,  last  of  all,  also  by  the 
Emperor  (see  p.  151).  The  Synod  declares  in  this,  before 
all,  its  adhesion  to  the  five  earlier  Synods,1  repeats  the 
symbols  of  Nicsea  and  Constantinople,  and  proceeds  thus  : 
"  These  creeds  would  have  sufficed  for  the  knowledge  and  con 
firmation  of  the  orthodox  faith.  As,  however,  the  originator 
of  all  evil  always  finds  a  helping  serpent,  by  means  of  which 
he  can  diffuse  his  poison,  and  therewith  finds  suitable  instru 
ments  for  his  will,  we  mean  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius, 
Pyrrhus,  Paul,  Peter,  the  former  Bishops  of  Constantinople, 
also  Honorius,  Pope  of  Old  Eome,  Cyrus  of  Alexandria, 
Macarius  of  Antioch  and  his  disciple  Stephen,  he  did  not 
delay,  through  the  trouble  in  the  Church,  by  the  dissemina 
tion  of  the  heretical  doctrine  of  one  will  and  one  energy  of 
the  two  natures  of  the  one  Christ,  who  is  one  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  to  assert  that  which  agrees  with  the  heresy  of 
Apollinaris,  Severus,  and  Themistius,  and  thus  serves  to  take 
away  the  full  Incarnation  of  Christ,  and  to  represent  His 
rationally  quickened  flesh  as  without  will  or  energy.  But 
Christ  our  God  awoke  the  faithful  Emperor,  the  new  David, 
.  .  .  who  did  not  rest  until  this  assembly  found  the 
perfect  proclamation  of  orthodoxy.  This  holy  and  CEcumen- 
ical  Synod  has  received  TTVO-TO)?,  and  with  uplifted  hands  has 
greeted  the  letter  of  the  most  holy  Pope  Agatho  to  the 
Emperor,  in  which  are  particularly  brought  forward  and  con 
demned,  those  who  taught  one  will  and  one  energy.  So  also 
they  accepted  the  synodal  letter  of  the  125  bishops  assembled 
under  the  Pope  (see  p.  145),  since  the  two  letters  agree  with 
the  holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  the  tome  of  the  holy  Leo  to 
Flavian,  and  with  the  synodal  letters  of  Cyril  against  Nes- 
torius  and  the  bishops  of  the  East.  Following  the  five  holy 
and  (Ecumenical  Synods  and  the  Fathers  of  repute,  and  con 
fessing  that  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  one  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
is  perfect  in  the  Godhead  and  perfect  in  the  manhood,  etc. 
(Eepetition  of  the  creed  of  Chalcedon;  see  vol.  iii.  p.  346  ff.). 
We  also  declare  that  there  are  two  natural  Oekriaew  or 


1  At  the  fifth  it  is  mentioned  that  they  had  been  assembled  against  Origen, 
Didymus,  and  Evagrius  (see  vol.  iv.  p.  295). 


THE   EIGHTEENTH   SESSION.  175 

6e\rjfjLara   and    two   natural    energies,  dSicupeTws,    drpeTrrco^, 
dfjLepiaTtos,  davyxvTws,  in   Christ,  according  to   the  teaching 
of  the  holy  Fathers.     And  the  two    natural  wills  are    not 
opposed  to  each  other, — God  forbid, — as  the  impious  heretics 
said,  but  His  human  will  followed,  and  it  does  not  resist  and 
oppose,  but  rather  is  subject  to  the  divine  and  almighty  will. 
The  will  of  the  human  nature  (<rdpi;)  necessarily  moved,  but 
also  subjected  itself  to  the  divine,  as  the  most  wise  Athanasius 
says :  As  the  flesh  (manhood)  of  God  the  Logos  is  called  flesh, 
and  is,  so  also  is  the  natural  will  of  His  flesh  the  proper  will 
of  the  Logos,  as  He  Himself  said  :  "  I  came  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  Mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  the  Father  who  sent 
Me."     He  calls  here  the  will  of  His  adpi;  His  own,  since  the 
crapf  was  also  His  own.     Just  as  His  all  holy  and  blameless 
(sinless)  crdpj;  (humanity)  was  not  taken  away  by  the  deifying, 
but  remained  in  its  limitation  and  fashion,  so  also  His  human 
will  is  not  taken  away  but  divinised,  it  rather  remains,  as 
Gregory  the  theologian  says :  His  will,  namely  that  of  the 
Saviour,  is  not  opposed  to  God,  bitt  quite  divinised.     We  teach 
further,    that     there    are    two    natural   energies,  aStatpe-nw?, 
arpeTTTft)?,    dftepicTTa)?,   and    dcrvyxvTWS,   in    our    Lord    Jesus 
Christ,  namely  the  divine  and  the  human  energy,  as  Leo  says  : 
Agit  enim  utraque  forma,  etc.  (vol.  iii.  p.  230).      We  do  not 
allow  that  God  and  His  creature  (the  humanity  of  Christ)  had 
one  and  the  same  energy,  so  as  not  to  introduce  the  creature 
into  the  divine  substance   (ovcria),  and  press  down  the  tran 
scendent    to    the  creaturely.     As    well   the  miracles  as  the 
sufferings  we  ascribe  to  one  and  the  same,  each  according  to 
the  difference  of  His  natures  ;  and  we  assert  two  natures  in  one 
hypostasis,  of  which  each  in  communion  with  the  other  wills 
and  works  what  is  proper  to  itself.     Therefore  we  confess  also 
two  natural  wills  and   operations  (energies)  going   together 
harmoniously   for    the     salvation    of    the   human   race.      A 
different  faith   no  one  may  proclaim  or  hold ;  and  those  who 
venture  to  do  so, ,  ,  .  or  will  introduce  a  new  formula  for  the 
destruction  of  our  definition  of  the  faith,  shall,  if  bishops  or 
clerics,  be  deposed  from  their  clerical  office,  but  if  monks  or 
laymen,  shall  be  anathematised  " x 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  631  sqq, ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1395  sqq, 


176  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

The  question  of  the  Emperor,  whether  this  decree  had 
received  the  assent  of  all  the  bishops,  was  answered  with  loud 
acclamations ;  so  also  his  declaration  that,  in  the  summoning 
of  the  Synod,  he  had  had  in  view  only  the  purity  of  the 
faith  and  the  restoration  of  unity.      Then  the  \6yos  Trpocr- 
<f>wvr)TLKo<$  of  the  Synod,  drawn  up  in  the  usual  manner,  was 
read  to  the  Emperor.     It  contains,  first,  the  praise  of  the 
Emperor,  especially  for  the  calling  of  this  Synod.      The  Pope 
of  Eome  and  the  other  bishops  had  followed  his  command,  and 
had  appeared,  some  personally  and  some  by  representatives, 
in   Constantinople.     As  the  earlier  five  (Ecumenical  Synods 
had   become   necessary   on    account   of   heresy,   so   also    the 
present ;  and  in  agreement  with  the  letters  of  Pope  Agatho 
and  his  Eoman  Synod  of  125  bishops,  the  Synod  taught,  that 
one  of  the  Trinity,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  was  made  man, 
and  is  to  be  worshipped  in  two  perfect  natures  undividedly. 
"  If,  however,  we  assume,"  it  goes  on,  "  two  natures,  we  must 
also  recognise  two  natural  wills  and  two  natural  energies  of 
the  same ;  for  we  do  not  venture  to  declare  one  of  the  two 
natures  in  Christ  to  be  without  will  and  without  energy,  lest 
in  taking    away  the    properties  we    take  away  the  natures 
themselves.       We    do    not    deny    the    natural    will    of    His 
humanity  or  the  energy  which  corresponds  with  this  will, 
while  at  the  same  time  we  also  do  not  deny  TO  TTJS  crcoTrjpLas 
rjfjiwv  olKovofjbiKov  /ce(j)d\ai,ov,  or  ascribe  the  sufferings  to  the 
Godhead,  as  was  attempted  by  those  who  confessed  only  one 
will    and   one    energy,   in   unholy   innovation,  renewing   the 
heresies  of  Arius,  Apollinaris,  Eutyches,  and  Severus.     If  we 
were  to  assume  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord  as  without  will 
and  without  energy,  where  would  then  be  His  perfect  humanity? 
For  nothing  else  makes  the  human  substance  (ovaia)  perfect, 
but    TO  ovaiw&e?  #eX77yita,   whereby   the   power   of   liberty   is 
stamped  upon  us.      So  it  is  with  regard  to  energy.     How  can 
we  ascribe  to  Him  (Christ)  perfect  humanity,  if  He  did  not 
work    and     suffer    in    a    human    way  ?  .  .  .  Therefore    we 
punish   with   excommunication    and    anathema    Theodore    of 
Pharan,  Sergius,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter,  also  Cyrus,  and 
with  them  Honorius,  formerly  Pope  of  Eome,  as  he  followed 
them  (&>9  eKeivois  ev  TOVTOIS  aKo\ovOr)o-avra),  but  especially 


THE   EIGHTEENTH   SESSION.  177 

Macarius  and  Stephen,  .  .  .  also  Polychronius,  the  childish 
old  man,  who  wanted  to  awaken  one  who  was  dead,  and 
because  he  could  not,  was  derided  ;  and  all  who  asserted  or 
assert  one  will  and  one  operation  (energy)  in  the  Incarnate 
Christ.  And  no  one  must  blame  the  zeal  of  the  Pope  and  of 
this  Synod,  for  we  did  not  begin  the  conflict,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  have  only  offered  opposition  to  the  aggressors.  .  .  . 
On  our  side  fought  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  for  his  imitator 
and  successor  is  our  patron,  and  declared  to  us  in  his  letter 
the  secret  of  theology."  The  close  is  composed  of  commend 
ations  of  the  Emperor,  and  good  wishes  for  him.1 

This  ^070?  TTpoo-cfrcovrjTiKos  was  also  subscribed  by  the 
members  of  the  Synod,  the  papal  legates  at  the  head  ;  and 
they  requested  the  Emperor  to  give  his  subscription  and 
his  confirmation  of  the  decrees.  He  immediately  consented, 
and  wished  that  Archbishop  Citonius  of  Sardinia,  who  had 
come  into  suspicion  of  high  treason,  but  had  been  acquitted, 
should  now  also  be  received  by  the  Synod,  and  allowed  to 
subscribe  its  decree.  After  this  was  done,  the  Synod  re 
quested  that  the  Emperor  would  be  pleased  to  send  five 
attested  copies  of  the  decree  of  the  faith,  signed  by  himself, 
to  the  five  patriarchal  sees,  which  also  was  immediately 
accomplished.2 

Finally,  the  Synod  addressed  another  letter  to  Pope 
Agatho,  "  the  physician  for  the  present  sickness  of  the 
Church,"  leaving  to  him  as  the  TrpwroOpovos  what  was  to  be 
clone  —  to  him  who  stood  upon  the  firm  rock  of  the  faith.  The 
Synod,  they  said,  had  destroyed  the  tower  of  the  heretics, 
and  killed  them  by  anathemas,  in  accordance  with  the  sentence 
given  before  by  the  Pope  (/cara  TTJV  rot?  iepols 


1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  658  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1415  sqq. 

2  In  the  appendix  to  his  Historia  Monotheletarum,  p.  199  sqq.,  Combefis 
gives  us  an  eiri\oyos  of  deacon  Agatho,  which   asserts  that  thirty-two  years 
before,  when  he  was  still  a  lector,  he  had  served  the  holy  Synod  as  secretary, 
and  in  union  with  the  secretary,  afterwards  Archbishop  Paul  of  Constantinople, 
had  written  most  of  the  Acts.     The  five  copies  of  the  decree  of  faith  destined 
for  the  five  patriarchs  had  also  been  prepared  by  his   hand.  —  In    the   super 
scription  of  the  copy  destined  for  Jerusalem  (Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  683  ;  Hardouin, 
t.  iii.  p.  1437),  the  last  words  are  an  addition  by  a  later  hand.     See  below,  the 
last  note  in  sec.  326. 

V.  —  12 


178  HISTOEY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 


ITT  avrol<f  TrpoTfrrj^iaOelaav  airotfxKTiv),  namely,  Theodore  of 
Pharan,  Sergius,  Honorius,  Cyrus,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter. 
Besides  these,  also  Macarius  and  Stephen.  Enlightened  by 
the  Holy  Ghost,  instructed  by  the  Pope,  and  protected  by 
the  Emperor,  they  had  rejected  the  impious  doctrines,  and 
pronounced  the  dogma  of  two  wills  and  energies.  The  Pope 
would  be  pleased  to  confirm  their  decrees  in  writing.1 

SEC.  323.   The  Pope  and  the  Emperor  confirm  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod. 

Immediately  after  the  end  of  the  Synod,  the  Emperor 
caused  to  be  posted  in  the  third  atrium  2  of  the  great  church 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Dicymbalon  the  following  edict  : 
"  The  heresy  of  Apollinaris,  etc.,  has  been  renewed  by  Theo 
dore  of  Pharan  and  confirmed  by  Honorius,  who  contradicted 
himself  (o  T?}?  alpeo-ecos  PepatOTrjs  ical  CLVTOS  eavrw  Trpocrfjia- 
^o//,ez>o?).  Also  Cyrus,  Pyrrhus,  Paul,  Peter  ;  more  recently, 
Macarius,  Stephen,  and  Polychronius  had  diffused  Monothel- 
itism.  He,  the  Emperor,  had  therefore  convoked  this  holy 
and  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  published  the  present  edict  with 
the  confession  of  faith,  in  order  to  confirm  and  establish  its 
decrees.  (There  follows  here  an  extended  confession  of  faith, 
with  proofs  for  the  doctrine  of  two  wills  and  operations.) 
As  he  recognised  the  five  earlier  (Ecumenical  Synods,  so  he 
anathematised  all  heretics  from  Simon  Magus,  but  especially 
the  originators  and  patrons  of  the  new  heresy,  Theodore  and 
Sergius  ;  also  Pope  Honorius,  who  was  their  adherent  and 
patron  in  everything,  and  confirmed  the  heresy  (rov  Kara 
TOVTOIS  a-vvatperrjv  KOI  <rvvSpofj.ov  ical  {Beftai(*)Tr)v  TT)? 
;  further,  Cyrus,  etc.,  and  ordained  that  no  one 
henceforth  should  hold  a  different  faith,  or  venture  to  teach 
one  will  and  one  energy.  In  no  other  than  the  orthodox 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  683  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1438  sqq.      This  letter  was 
also  subscribed  by  the  members  of  the  Synod,  with  the  exception  of  the  papal 
legates.     That  a  fragment  of  subscriptions  formerly  ascribed  erroneously  to  the 
Nicene  Synod  (Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  694)  belongs  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
we  remarked  before  (vol.  i.  sec.  35). 

2  [A  court  attached  to  early  churches,  usually  placed  in  front  of  the  church, 
and  supported  with  porticoes.     See  Did.  of  Antiquities,  s.v.] 


CONFIRMATION   OF   SIXTH   (ECUMENICAL   SYNOD.  179 

faith  could  men  be  saved.  Whoever  did  not  obey  the 
imperial  edict  should,  if  he  were  bishop  or  cleric,  be  de 
posed  ;  if  official,  punished  with  confiscation  of  property  and 
loss  of  girdle  (&vi]) ;  if  private  person,  banished  from  the 
residence  and  all  other  cities.1 

Pope  Agatho  had  survived  until  the  end  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  but  the  news  of  his  death  (f  January  10, 
682)  reached  Constantinople  before  his  legates  had  left  the  city, 
and  the  Emperor  therefore  gave  them,  at  their  departure,  a 
letter  to  the  new  Pope,  Leo  IL,  who  was  elected  soon  after  the 
death  of  his  predecessor,  but  was  not  ordained  until  August  1 7, 
682.2  The  Emperor  relates  in  this  letter  the  whole  progress 
of  the  affair,  how  all  the  members  of  the  Synod  had  assented 
to  the  doctrinal  letter  of  Pope  Agatho,  with  the  exception  of 
Macarius  of  Antioch  and  his  adherents.  These  had  been 
deposed  by  the  Synod,  but  had  requested  in  writing  that  they 
should  be  sent  to  the  Pope,  which  the  Emperor  now  did,  and 
left  the  decision  of  their  affair  to  his  Holiness.  The  Pope 
would  now  take  the  sword  of  the  Word,  and  with  it  beat 
down  all  heresy,  etc.  Finally,  he  was  requested  to  send  the 
representative  already  promised  to  Constantinople.3 

A  second  imperial  letter  was  addressed  to  all  the  ecclesi 
astical  provinces  (Concilia)  of  the  Eoman  patriarchate,  and 
similarly  related  how  all  the  bishops,  Macarius  excepted, 
had  assented  to  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  Pope  Agatho.4  The 
persons  anathematised  by  the  sixth  Council  are  not  named 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  698  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1446  sqq. 

-  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  711  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1459.  This  letter  and  the  departure 
of  the  legates  belong  to  the  10th  Indiction  (September  1,  681  =  682),  and  not 
to  December  of  the  same  date,  as  the  later  superscription  of  the  imperial  letter 
to  Leo  n.  states.  The  December  of  the  10th  Indiction  would  =  December  of 
the  year  681.  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ami.  683,  5  sqq.;  Natal.  Alexand.  Hist.  Eccl. 
Sec.  vii.  Diss.  ii.;  and  Chmel,  Vindicm  Concilii  CEcum.  VI.  p.  83  sqq.,  who 
defend  the  genuineness  of  this  letter  and  of  the  two  following  documents 
against  Baronius. 

3  Pope  Leo  had  written  to  the  Emperor  immediately  after  his  election,  and 
notified  him  of  it.     See  Pagi,  I.e. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  719;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1463.     The  chronological  note  at 
the  end  of  this  letter,  found  in  one  old  Latin  translation,  is  lacking  in  the 
Greek  original,  and  is  worthless.     So  also  with  that  appended  to  the  letter  of 
Leo  ii.  to  the  Emperor,  presently  to  be  mentioned.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  aim.  683,  5,  7. 


180  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

in  either  of  these  letters  of  the  Emperor,  and  thus  not 
Honorius. 

Pope  Leo  n.  responded  to  the  wish  of  the  Emperor  in  a 
letter  addressed  to  him,  which  at  the  same  time  contains  the 
papal  confirmation  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  The  Pope 
in  this  letter  first  commends  the  Emperor  as  indeed  worthy  of 
commendation,  and  then  remarks  that  the  legates  who  had 
been  sent  by  Agatho  to  the  Synod  had  arrived  in  Eome  in 
the  July  of  the  past  10th  Indiction,  i.e.  in  the  July  of  682. 
From  this  it  is  clear  that  the  concluding  note  of  this  letter, 
as  found  in  one  of  the  two  old  Latin  translations,  repre 
senting  it  as  written  Nonis  Maii  Indict,  x.,  i.e.  on  the  7th  of 
May  682,  cannot  possibly  be  genuine  ;  for  the  Pope  wrote 
after  the  return  of  his  legates. 

Further,  Leo  n.  says  that  the  legates  had  brought  the 
letter  of  the  Emperor  and  the  Acts  of  the  Council  with  them. 
He  had  carefully  examined  the  latter,  and  found  them  quite 
in  agreement  with  the  declarations  of  faith  of  his  predecessor 
Agatho  and  the  Koman  Synod.  He  confirmed  and  recognised, 
therefore,  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  in  the  same  way  as 
the  five  preceding,  and  anathematised  all  heretics,  Arius,  etc. ; 
also  the  originators  of  the  new  heresy,  Theodore  of  Pharan, 
Cyrus,  etc. ;  also  Honorius,  qui  Jianc  apostolicam  sedem  non 
apostolicce  traditionis  doctrina  lustravit,  sed  prof  ana  proditione 
immaculatam  fidem  sulvertere  conatus  est  (according  to  the 
Greek,  irape-^p^ae  =  siibverti  permisit),  et  omnes,  qui  in  suo 
err  ore  defuncti  sunt.  Finally,  of  Macarius  and  his  adherents 
it  is  said,  that  the  Pope  has  given  himself  much  trouble 
to  lead  them  again  into  the  right  way,  but  hitherto  they 
have  remained  stiff-necked.1  The  close  of  the  letter  is 
composed  of  laudations  of  the  Emperor.2 

As  Pope  Leo  n.  in  this  document  confirmed  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  so  did  he  zealously  endeavour  to  bring 
about  its  recognition  throughout  the  entire  West.  We  see 

1  With  Macarius  were,  at  the  same  time,   sent  to  Rome,  Stephen,  Poly- 
clironius,  Epiphanitis,  Anastasius,  and  Leontius.     The  two  last  were  converted, 
and  Leo  n.  received  them  back  into  the  Church  ;  the  others  were  imprisoned 
in   different  monasteries.     Anastasii   Vitss,  Pontif.   in  Mansi,   t.   xi.    pp.   167, 
1047. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  726  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1470  sqq. 


THE  ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  181 

this  from  his  letters  to  the  Spanish  bishops  still  extant,  to 
Bishop  Quiricius  in  particular,1  to  the  Spanish  King  Ervig,2 
and  to  Count  Simplicius.3  As  the  whole  Acts  of  the  Council 
had  not  yet  been  translated  into  Latin,  the  Pope  could  send 
to  the  Spaniards  only  some  principal  parts  of  them,  with  the 
request  that  the  decrees  of  this  Synod  should  be  received 
and  subscribed  by  them  all.  The  Eoman  notary  Peter  was 
commissioned  to  deliver  these  letters,  and  to  urge  on  the  affair  ; 
that  he  accomplished  his  end  we  shall  learn  later  on,  when 
we  consider  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  Synods  of  Toledo. 

SEC.  324.    The  Anathema  on  Pope  Honorius,  and  the  genuine 
ness  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council* 

If  we  have  so  far  given  extracts  from  the  Acts  of  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  we  are  now  required  to  examine 
more  closely  the  question  respecting  the  anathematising  of 
Pope  Honorius.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  startling,  even 
scarcely  credible,  that  an  (Ecumenical  Council  should  punish 
with  anathema  a  Pope  as  a  heretic !  In  order  to  get  rid  of 
all  the  difficulties  resulting  from  such  a  fact,  Baronius  and 
his  followers  have  maintained  that  the  Acts  of  the  Council 
which  speak  of  the  anathema  on  Honorius  are  forged,  whilst 
others  have  thought  that  the  Acts  indeed  are  genuine,  but 
that  the  Council  condemned  Honorius,  not  for  heresy,  but 
for  negligence  (because  he  was  silent  at  the  wrong  time). 
Both  of  these  attempts  at  explanation  have  recently  been 
quite  decidedly  opposed  by  Professor  Pennacchi  in  Eome,  the 
most  distinguished  of  the  later  defenders  of  Pope  Honorius. 

1  It  is  doubtful  whether  this  means  Archbishop  Quiricius  of  Toledo.     He 
died  in  January,  680,  whilst  Pope  Leo  did  not  ascend  the  papal  chair  until 
682.     Perhaps  the  Pope  had  not  heard  of  his  death. 

2  The  letter  to  King  Ervig  is  in  many  MSS.  ascribed  to  the  succeeding 
Pope,  Benedict  u. 

3Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1050  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1730  sqq.  As  in  all  these 
letters  of  Leo  to  the  Spaniards  the  anathema  on  Honorius  is  mentioned, 
Baronius  wanted  to  declare  them  all  spurious.  But  they  were  well  defended 
by  Pagi,  ad  ann.  683,  5-14  ;  and  Combefis,  Hist.  H&rcs.  Monothdct.  p.  154. 
The  next  paragraph  in  the  text  meets  the  objections  of  Baronius. 

This  section  receives  many  alterations  and  additions  in  the  second 
edition. 


182  HISTOKY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

He  has  most  distinctly  maintained  that  the  Acts  of  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  are  genuine,  and  that  in  them 
Pope  Honorius  was  anathematised  as  a  real  heretic 
(formalis).1 

That,  however,  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  actually 
condemned  Honorius  on  account  of  heresy,  is  clear  beyond 
all  doubt,  when  we  consider  the  following  collection  of  the 
sentences  of  the  Synod  against  him. 

(1)  At  the  entrance  of  the  thirteenth  session,  on  March 
28,  681,  the  Synod  says:  "After  reading  the  doctrinal  letter 
of  Sergius  of  Constantinople  to  Cyrus  of  Phasis  (afterwards 
of  Alexandria)  and  to  Pope  Honorius,  and  also  the  letter  of  the 
latter  to  Sergius,  we  found  that  these  documents  were  quite  foreign 
(omnino  alienas)  to  the  apostolic  doctrines,  and  to  the  declarations 
of  the  holy  Councils  and  all  the  Fathers  of  note,  and  follow  the 
false  doctrines  of  heretics.    Therefore  we  reject  them  completely, 
and   abhor   (/3SeXXurToyite#a)    them    as  hurtful    to    the  soul. 
But  also  the  names  of  these  men  must  be  thrust  out  of  the 
Church,  namely,  that  of  Sergius,  the  first  who  wrote  on  this 
impious  doctrine.      Further,  that  of  Cyrus  of  Alexandria,  of 
Pyrrhus,  Paul,  and  Peter  of  Constantinople,  and  of  Theodore 
of  Pharan,  all   of  whom   also   Pope  Agatho  rejected  in  his 
letter  to  the  Emperor.      We  punish  them  all  with  anathema. 
But  along  with  them,  it  is  our  universal  decision  that  there 
shall  also  be  shut  out  from  the  Church  and  anathematised  the 
former  Pope  Honorius  of  Old  Rome,  because  we  found   in  his 
letter  to  Sergius,  that  in  everything  he  followed  his  view  and 
confirmed  his  impious  doctrines  (Kara    Trdvra    rfj    e/celvov  [of 
Sergius]   yvw/Jirj   £%aKO\ovQr)<ravTa  KOI  TCL  CIVTOV  d(re{3fj   fcvpa)- 
cravra  So^ara)."  - 

(2)  Towards   the   end   of    the  same   session   the  second 
letter    of    Pope    Honorius    to    Sergius    was    presented    for 
examination,   and  it    was  ordered    that    all    the    documents 
brought  by  George,  the  keeper  of  the  archives  in  Constan- 

1  Pennacchi  remarks  (p.  275),  in  opposition  to  me:   " Secundam  doctissimi 
episcopi  qufestionem  prsetermittere  possem :   siquidem  et  ego  fateor  (et  fateri 
id  etiam  omnes  illi  debent  qiti  veritatem  amant)  Honorium  in  vi.  synodo  ut 
hpereticum  damnatum  fuisse.     Further  remarks  on  Pennacchi's  attempt  at  a 
solution  of  the  question  of  Honorius  will  be  found  below  in  this  section,  p.  188. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  554  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  vi.  p.  1332  sq. 


THE  ANATHEMA  ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  183 

tinople,  and  among  them  the  two  letters  of  Honorius,  should 
immediately  be  burnt,  as  hurtful  to  the  soul  (see  p.  169). 

(3)  Again,   the  sixth    (Ecumenical    Council    referred   to 
Honorius  in  the  sixteenth  session,  on  August  9,  681,  at  the 
acclamations  and  exclamations  with  which  the  transactions  of 
this  day  were  closed.     The  bishops  exclaimed  :  "  Many  years 
to   the  Emperor,  many   years  to   the   Eoman   Pope   Agatho, 
many  years  to  the  Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople,  etc. 
Anathema  to  the  heretic  Sergius,  to  the  heretic  Cyrus,  to  the 
heretic  Honorius,  to  the  heretic  Pyrrhus,"  etc.,  etc.  (see  p.  173). 

(4)  Still   more   important  is   that  which  took    place  at 
the  eighteenth  and  last  session,  on  September  16,  681.      In. 
the  decree  of  the  faith  which  was  now  published,  and  forms 
the  principal  document  of  the  Synod,  we  read :  "  The  creeds 
(of  the  earlier  (Ecumenical  Synods)  would  have  sufficed  for 
knowledge  and  confirmation  of  the  orthodox  faith.     Because, 
however,  the  originator  of  all  evil  still  always  finds  a  helping 
serpent,  by  which  he  may  diffuse  his  poison,  and  therewith 
finds  fit   tools  for   his    will,  we   mean   Theodore   of  Pharan, 
Sergius,    Pyrrhus,    Paul,     Peter,    former    bishops     of     Con 
stantinople,  also  Honorius,  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  Cyrus  of  Alex 
andria,  etc.,  so  he  failed  not,  by  them,  to  cause  trouble  in  the 
Church    by   the  scattering  of  the  heretical  doctrine  of  one 
will  and  one  energy  of  the  two  natures  of  the  one  Christ " 
(see  p.  173  f.). 

(5)  After  the  papal  legates,  all  the  bishops,  and  the  Emperor 
had   received  and  subscribed   this  decree  of  the   faith,   the 
Synod    published     the    usual    \6yos    Trpoo-^wvrjriKo^,    which, 
addressed  to  the  Emperor,  says,  among  other  things :  "  There 
fore   we  punish  with  exclusion   and  anathema,  Theodore  of 
Pharan,  Sergius,  Paul,  Pyrrhus,  and  Peter ;  also  Cyrus,  and 
with  them  Honorius,  formerly  bishop  of  Rome,  as  he  folloivcd 
them"  (see  p.  176f.). 

(6)  In  the  same  session  the  Synod  also  put  forth  a  letter 
to  Pope  Agatho,  and  says  therein  :    "  We  have  destroyed  the 
fort  of  the  heretics,  and  slain   them  with   anathema,  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  sentence  spoken  before  in  your  holy  letter, 
namely,  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  Honorius,  Cyrus,"  etc. 
(see  p.  178). 


184  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(7)  In  closest  connection  with  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  stands  the  imperial  decree  confirming 
their  resolutions.  The  Emperor  writes  :  "  With  this  sick 
ness  (as  it  came  out  from  Apollinaris,  Eutyches,  Themistius, 
etc.)  did  those  unholy  priests  afterwards  again  infect  the 
Church,  who  before  our  times  falsely  governed  several 
churches.  These  are  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius  the 
former  bishop  of  this  chief  city  ;  also  Honoring,  the  Pope  of 
Old  Rome  (e'rt  Se  fcal  'Ovcopios  6  rf)<;  Trpscr/BvTepas  Pcbjuys 
TraTras  yevopevos),  the  strengtliener  (confirmer)  of  heresy  who 
contradicted  himself  (o  T?}?  alpeaeax;  peftaiwrr)?,  KOL  avrbs 


"  We  anathematise  all  heresy  from  Simon  (Magus)  to 
this  present,  .  .  .  besides,  we  anathematise  and  reject  the 
originators  and  patrons  of  the  false  and  new  doctrines, 
namely,  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  .  .  .  also  Honorius,  who 
was  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  who  in  everything  agreed  with  them, 
went  with  them,  and  strengthened  the  heresy  (ert  Se  Kal 
^Ovaipiov  rbv  TT}?  Trpeo-ffvTepas  fP&>yu,?79  TraTrav  yevofjizvov,  rbi> 
/cara  Trdvra  TOUT  0^9  crvvaLperrjv  Kal  o-vv&pofjiov  Kal  /3eftaiWTr)V 
TT}?  aipeo-eay?"  (see  p.  178  f.). 

From  all  this  it  cannot  be  doubtful  in  what  sense  Pope 
Honorius  was  anathematised  by  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council, 
and  it  is  equally  beyond  doubt  that  the  Council  judged  much 
more  severely  respecting  him  than  we  have  done  above.  We 
were  obliged  to  allow  that  Honorius  disapproved  of  the 
Monothelite  term  ev  tfeX^/xa,  uttered  literally  nude  crude, 
and  the  orthodox  term  Svo  evepyeiai;  but  we  also  proved  and 
showed  from  his  own  words  that  it  was  only  in  the  expres 
sion  that  he  erred,  whilst  in  truth  his  opinions  were 
orthodox.  The  Council,  on  the  contrary,  simply  gave  atten 
tion  to  the  incriminated,  unlucky  expressions,  which  were 
misused  by  the  Monothelites,  and  pronounced  its  sentence 
on  these,  on  their  sound,  on  the  mere  fact  that  Honorius 
had  so  written. 

With  greater  precision  than  the  Synod,  however,  Pope 
Leo  n.  pointed  out  the  fault  of  Honorius,  when,  in  his 

1  The  Synod,  too,  remarked  that  several  passages  in  the  letters  of  Honorius 
stood  in  contradiction  to  his  apparent  Monothelitism. 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  185 

letter  to  the  Emperor,  confirming  the  decrees  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  he  says :  "  Pariter  anathematizamus 
novi  erroris  inventores,  id  est  Theodorum  Pharanitanum 
episcopum,  Cyrum  Alexandrinum,  Sergium,  Pyrrhum,  Paulum, 
Petrum  Constantinopolitanae  Ecclesise  subsessores  magis  quam 
praesules,  necnon  et  JTonorium,  qui  hanc  apostolicam  ecclesiam 
non  apostolical  traditionis  doctrina  lustravit,  sed  profunda 
proditione  immaculatam  fidem  siibvertere  conatus  est  (in  the 
Greek,  siibverti  permisit,  Trape^coprjae),  et  ornnes  qui  in  suo 
errorc  defunct  I  sunt"  (see  p.  180).  From  this  it  is  clear  that 
Pope  Leo  n.  also  anathematised  Honorius,  because  he  did 
not  bring  the  apostolic  doctrine  to  light,  i.e.,  did  not  speak 
out  as  a  teacher,  and  so,  by  the  violation  of  his  sacred  duties, 
allowed  the  falsification  of  the  faith  (the  Greek,  rfj  /Se/rfy'Xco 
7rpo8o(ria  fjLiavOfjvai,  Trape^prjae,  etc.,  is  not  only  milder,  but 
also  more  accurate,  and  consistent  with  the  expression  of  Leo 
in  his  letter  to  King  Ervig,  whilst  the  Latin  text  (a  mere 
translation  from  the  Greek)  plainly  does  wrong  to  Pope 
Honorius). 

In  like  sense,  Pope  Leo  n.  expressed  himself  in  his  letter 
to  the  Spanish  bishops :  "  Qui  vero  adversurn  apostolicse 
traditionis  puritatem  perduelliones  exstiterant  .  .  .  reterna 
condemnation  mulctati  sunt,  i.e.  Theodorus  Pharanitanus, 
Cyrus  Alexandrinus,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paulus,  Petrus  Con- 
stantinopolitani,  cum  Honorio  qui  flammam  Ticeretici  dogmatis 
non,  ut  decuit  apostolicam  auctoritatem,  incipientem  extinxit,  sed 
negligendo  confovit."  (See  p.  182.)  And  so,  in  fact,  it  was. 
Honorius  ought  to  have  suppressed  the  heresy  at  its  beginning 
by  a  clear  exhibition  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  but  he  fostered 
it  by  his  negligence,  by  his  unhappy  words  to  Sergius  (in  his 
first  letter  especially). 

Once  more  Leo  n.  speaks  of  the  anathematising  of 
Honorius,  in  his  letter  to  the  Spanish  King  Ervig,  thus : 
"  Omnesque  hsereticse  assertionis  auctores  venerando  censente 
concilio  condemnati,  de  catholicse  ecclesise  adunatione  pro- 
jecti  sunt,  i.e.  Theodorus  Pharanitanus  episcopus,  Cyrus 
Alexandrinus,  Sergius,  Paulus,  Pyrrhus,  et  Petrus,  quondam 
Constantinopolitani  pnesules ;  et  una  cum  eis  Honorius 
Romanus,  qui  immacidatam  apostolicce  traditionis  reyulam, 


186  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

quam  a  prcedecessoribus  suis  accepit,  maculari  consensit "  (i.e.  he 
allowed  the  maculari,  (a)  from  negligence,  since  he  did  not 
come  forward  against  it,  and  (&)  since  he  used  an  expression 
which  the  heresy  turned  to  its  own  use).  Whether  this 
letter  proceeded  from  Pope  Leo  himself,  or  from  his  successor 
Benedict  IL,  is  here  indifferent. 

Of  the  fact  that  Pope  Honorius  had  been  anathemat 
ised  by  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  mention  is  made 
by  the  Quinisext  or  the  Trullan  Synod,  which  was  held 
only  twelve  years  after.  The  Synod  says  in  its  first  canon : 
"  Further,  we  confess  the  faith  which  the  sixth  Synod 
proclaimed.  That  taught  that  we  must  accept  two  natural 
wills  and  operations  in  Christ,  and  condemned  (fcara- 
Si/cdo-aaa)  all  who  taught  only  one  will,  namely,  Theodore 
of  Pharan,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  ffonorius  of  Rome,  Sergius, 
etc.,  etc." x 

Like  testimony  is  also  given  repeatedly  by  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Synod  ;  especially  does  it  declare,  in  its  principal 
document,  the  decree  of  the  faith :  "  We  declare  at  once  two 
wills  and  energies  according  to  the  property  of  the  natures 
in  Christ,  just  as  the  sixth  Synod  in  Constantinople  taught, 
condemning  (d'jro/CTjpv^ao-a)  Sergius,  ffonorius,  Cyrus,  etc., 
etc."  2  The  like  is  asserted  by  the  Synod  or  its  members  in 
several  other  places.3 

To  the  same  effect  the  eighth  (Ecumenical  Synod  expresses 
itself :  "  Sanctam  et  universalem  sextam  synodum  suscipi- 
entes  .  .  .  anathematizamus  autem  Theodorum,  qui  fuit  epis- 
copus  Pharan,  et  Sergium,  et  Pyrrhum,  .  .  .  atque  cum  eis 
Honorium  JRomcc,  una  cum  Cyro  Alexandrine."  4 

That  the  name  of  Honorius  was  found  among  those 
anathematised  in  the  Roman  copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  is  also  quite  clear  from  Anastasii  Vita 
Leonis  u.,  in  which  he  says  :  "  Hie  suscepit  sanctam  sextam 
synodum  ...  in  qua  et  condemnati  sunt  Cyrus,  Sergius, 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  938  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1658. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  377  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  454. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  1124,  1141  ;  t.  xiii.  pp.  404,   412  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp. 
134,  147,  474,  482. 

4  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  181  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  914. 


THE  ANATHEMA   ON  POPE  HONORIUS.  187 

Honorius,  et  Pyrrhus,  Paulus  et  Petrus,  nee  non  et  Macarius 
cum  discipulo  suo  Stephano."  ] 

In  the  Liber  Diurnus,  i.e.  the  Formulary  of  the  Eoman 
Chancery  (from  the  fifth  to  the  eleventh  century),  there  is 
found  the  old  formula  for  the  papal  oath,  probably  prescribed  by 
Gregory  n.  (at  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century),  according 
to  which  every  new  Pope,  on  entering  upon  his  office,  had  to 
swear  that  "  he  recognised  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council, 
which  smote  with  eternal  anathema  the  originators  of  the 
new  heresy  (Monothelitism),  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  etc.,  together 
with  Honorius,  quia  pravis  Jicereticorum  assertionibus  fomentum 
impendit" 2 

Finally,  not  to  mention  still  later  witnesses,  e.g.  Bede, 
Pope  Hadrian  n.  (867-872)  writes:  "Licet  enim  Honorio 
ab  orientalibus  post  mortem  anathema  sit  dictum,  sciendurn 
tamen  est,  quia  fuerat  super  haeresi  accusatus,  propter  quam 
solam  licitum  est  minoribus,  majorum  suorum  motibus 
resistendi,  vel  pravos  sensus  libere  respuendi,  quamvis  et  ibi 
nee  Patriarcharum  nee  ceterorum  antistitum  cuipiam  de  eo 
fas  fuerit  proferendi  sententiam,  nisi  ejusdem  primse  seclis 
Pontificis  consensus  prsecessisset  auctoritas." 

This  utterance  of  Hadrian  was  read  and  approved  at  the 
seventh  session  of  the  eighth  (Ecumenical  Council ; 3  but  Pope 
Hadrian  started  with  the  opinion  that  the  anathematising  of 
Honorius  by  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  had  been  pre 
ceded  by  his  condemnation  by  Pope  Agatho.  Hadrian  was 
here  misled  by  some  turns  of  speech  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  where  it  is  said :  "  The  Synod  has  destroyed  the 
fortress  of  the  heretics,  and  slain  them  by  anathemas,  in 
accordance  with  the  sentence  previously  given  by  the  Pope, 
namely,  Theodore  of  Pharan,  Sergius,  Honorius,  etc.,  etc." 
(p.  178).  Here  it  was  quite  natural  to  infer  that  Agatho 
had  condemned  Honorius  as  well  as  Sergius.  Similarly  in 
the  thirteenth  session  (see  above,  p.  167).  In  fact,  however,  so 
little  had  Pope  Agatho  condemned  Honorius  as  a  heretic, 
that  he,  on  the  other  hand,  maintained,  as  we  have  seen 

1  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1047. 

"  Liber  Diurnus,  ed.  Eugene  de  Roziere,  Paris  1869,  No.  84. 

;i  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  126  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  866. 


188  HISTORY   OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

(p.  167),  that  all  his  predecessors  had  held  fast  the  true 
doctrine  in  opposition  to  the  Constantinopolitans. 

We  have  explained  above  (p.  185)  the  startling  pheno 
menon,  that  a  Pope  (Honorius)  was  anathematised  by  an 
(Ecumenical  Council  for  heresy,  in  this  way,  that  the  Synod 
attended  to  the  incriminated  passages  in  the  letters  of 
Honorius,  which  certainly  had  a  heterodox  sound  (particu 
larly  in  the  first),  and  to  the  fact  that  Honorius  had  thus 
written  and  given  great  help  to  the  heresy,  and  for  these 
reasons  pronounced  their  sentence. 

Another  solution  of  the  difficulty  was  attempted  by 
Pennacchi  in  his  often  quoted  work,  De  Honorii  I.  Eomani 
Pontificis  causa  in  Concilia  VI.  (see  p.  37  and  18 1).1 

(1)  He  maintains,  first  of  all,  that  the  letters  of  Pope 
Honorius  were  put  forth  auctoritate  apostolica,  or,  as  we  say,  ex 
cathedra  (Pennacchi,  I.e.  pp.  169—177);  and  have  come  down 
to  us  unfalsified  (ibid.  p.  75  sqq.),  that  they  are  thoroughly 
orthodox,  and    that  when    Honorius   said    imam  voluntatem 
fatemur  Domini  nostri   Jesu  Cliristi  (see  above,  p.    27),   he 
meant  only  the  will  of  the  uncorrupted  human  nature  of 
Christ   (as    Pope    John   iv.   asserted,   p.    52),   and    that    he 
dissuaded  from  the  use  of  the  orthodox  term  B uo  evepyeiai  only 
because   it    became  a  stumbling-block   to  many,  and  might 
be  misunderstood  in  a  Nestorian  sense  (ibid.  pp.  112-169). 

(2)  He  maintains,  further,  that  Honorius  was  anathemat 
ised  at  the   sixth   (Ecumenical   Synod   in   the  proper  sense 
as  Jicereticus  formalis  (ibid.  p.  177  sqq.),  and  that  the  Acts  of 
the    Council,  as    they   lie    before    us,  are    unfalsified    (ibid. 
p.  193). 

(3)  But     that    sentence    pronounced    against     Honorius 
rested  upon  an  error  in  facto  dogmatico  (ibid.  p.  204  sqq.), 
since   the   Fathers  of   the  Council  had  erroneously  regarded 
the  letters  of  Honorius  as  heretical ;  and  therefore  that 

(4)  This  sentence  was  not  that  of  an  (Ecumenical  infallible 
Council,  but  that  of  a  number  of  Orientals,  prejudiced  before 
hand,  on  the  character  of  the  letters  of  Honorius.      That  this 
sentence  stands  (a)  in  contradiction  with  the  decree  of  the 
contemporaneous  Pope  Agatho  and  his  Western   Synod,  who 
maintained  of  all  previous  Popes,  that  they  had  not  erred  in 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONOEIUS.  189 

fide  (see  above,  pp.  143  and  146).  Thus  only  the  Orientals, 
and  not  the  Pope  and  the  Westerns,  had  declared  Honorius  to 
be  heterodox,  (b)  The  papal  legates  had  certainly  subscribed 
the  decree  of  the  Synod  against  Honorius,  but  they  had  no 
authority  to  do  so  (ibid.  p.  220  sqq.),  and  it  was  (c)  their 
own  step,  so  far  that  the  sentence  of  the  Synod  was  not  con 
firmed  by  the  Pope,  not  by  Pope  Agatho,  who  died  before 
receiving  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  nor  yet  by  his  successor, 
Pope  Leo  n.  On  the  contrary,  the  latter  abrogated  the 
sentence  of  the  Synod,  and  replaced  it  by  another,  in  which 
Honorius  is  condemned,  not  for  heresy,  but  on  account  of 
negligentia  (ibid.  pp.  235—252.  (d)  If  Pope  Hadrian  IL,  in 
the  passage  quoted  above  (p.  187),  maintained  that  Honorius 
had  been  censured  by  the  Orientals  for  heresy,  after  the 
auctoritas  primce  sedis  Pontificis  had  preceded,  this  rests 
simply  upon  an  historical  error,  and  Hadrian  was  misled 
by  the  Acts  of  the  Council. 

The  last  point  we  have  ourselves  often  maintained  (p.  187), 
and  will  not  now  discuss  whether  the  papal  legates  had 
authority  to  subscribe  the  sentence  of  Honorius.  We  cannot, 
however,  agree  with  the  principal  points  in  Pennacchi's 
argument.  As  is  clear  from  all  that  has  been  said,  we  find 
the  letters  of  Honorius  by  no  means  so  correct  as  he  re 
presents  them,1  and  just  as  little  do  we  hold  ourselves 
justified  in  denying  to  the  sixth  Council,  in  its  sentence  on 
Honorius,  the  character  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  The 
opposition  which,  according  to  Pennacchi,  Pope  Leo.  II.  is 
supposed  to  have  made  against  the  Synod,  is  not  confirmed 
by  this  Pope's  own  letters,  but  contradicted.  In  the  letter  to 
the  Emperor,  in  which  Leo  n.  confirmed  the  doctrine  of  the 
sixth  Synod,  he  calls  it  repeatedly,  "sancta  et  universalis  et 
magna  sexta  synodus,  sancta  et  magna  synodus,  sanctum 
sextum  concilium."  He  then  says  of  Honorius  :  "  Pariterque 
anathematizamus  novi  erroris  inventores,  i.e.  Theodorum 
Pharanitanum,  etc.,  necnon  et  Honorium,  qui  hanc  apostolicam 
ecclesiam  non  apostoliccc  traditionis  doctrina  lustravit,  sed  pro- 
fana  proditione  immacidatam  fidem  maculari  permisit,  et  omnes 
qui  in  suo  errore  defuncti  sunt.  Similiter  anathematizamus 

1  Ct'.  above,  p.  34  ff.,  Schneemann's  expression. 


190  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

et  abominamur  imitatores  eorum  et  complices,  .  .  .  i.e.  Maca- 
rium,  etc.,  quos  et  sancta  universalis  supra  memorata  sexta 
synodus  abdicavit." 1  Thus,  with  direct  reference  to  the  sentence 
against  Honorius,  etc.,  he  calls  the  Synod  (Ecumenical. 

So  also  Pope  Leo  IL,  in  his  letter  to  the  Spanish  bishops, 
entitles  the  Council  the  universale  itaque  sanctum  sextum,  and 
informs  them  that  the  Council  had  condemned  Theodore  of 
Pharan,  etc.,  cum  Honorio,  qui  flammam  hceretici  dogmatis 
non,  lit  decuit  apostolicam  dignitatem,  incipientem  extinxit,  sed 
negligendo  confovit,  and  requests  of  the  Spanish  bishops  that 
they  will  subscribe,  in  a  translation,  the  definitio  venerandi 
concilii  (i.e.  the  decree  of  the  faith  of  the  eighteenth  session, 
in  which  the  anathema  on  Honorius  is  contained).2  The 
same  is  further  contained  in  Leo's  letter  to  the  Spanish 
King  Ervig  (see  above,  p.  185).  He  transmits  therewith 
to  the  Spaniards  the  definitio  of  the  Council  and  the  \6<yo$ 
TrpoacfrcovrjTiKos,  both  of  which  contain  the  anathema  on 
Honorius,  and  requires  the'  subscription  of  the  definitio  sacra} 
synodi?  How  any  one  can  say,  on  the  ground  of  these 
documents,  that  Pope  Leo  u.  did  not  (in  all  respects)  con 
firm  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
abrogated  its  sentence  on  Honorius,  is  to  me  not  in 
telligible  ;  on  the  contrary,  it  is  true  that  Pope  Leo  n. 
estimated  with  greater  precision  the  fault  of  Honorius  t  and  thus 
gave  the  sense  in  which  the  sentence  of  the  Council  published 
against  him  is  to  lc  understood.4" 

But  is  it  then  correct  to  say  that  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod  pronounced  anathema  on  Honorius  ?  Following 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  726  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1470  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1050 sq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1730 sq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1056  sq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1733. 

4  Schneemann  (I.e.  S.  62)  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  "the  Pope  con- 
iirnied  the  judgment  of  the  sixth  Synod  on  the  proviso  that  it  anathematised 
Honorius    only    on    account  of  favouring  the  heresy."     Schneemann   further 
remarks  :  "  As  the  validity  of  the  conciliar  decrees  depended  entirely  on  the  con 
firmation  by  the  Pope,  it  might  be  said  that  Honorius  had  been  condemned  by 
the  (Ecumenical  Council,  not  for  heresy,  but  for  favouring  heresy."    It  is  easily 
understood  how  far  Schneemann  departs  from  us  and  from  Pennacchi.     When 
the  latter  maintains  that  Pope  II.  "abrogated"  the   sentence  of  the  Council 
against  Honorius,  Schneemann  gives  the  milder  and  relatively  more  correct 
statement:   "The  Pope   confirmed  the   sentence   of  the   Council,  but  with  a 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  191 

Pighius  and  others,  Baronius  negatived  this  question  with 
a  great  expenditure  of  words,  and  some  have  followed  him.1 

The  passages  in  which  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  pro 
nounces  anathema  on  Honorius,  are  partly  such  as  consist  of 
only  a  few  words,  partly  longer  and  made  up  in  part  from 
several  propositions.  To  get  rid  of  the  first  of  these, 
Baronius  assumed  that  some  words  had  been  erased  from 
the  genuine  minutes,  and  others  introduced  in  their  place. 
In  order,  however,  to  set  aside  the  longer  passages,  he  united 
with  the  first  hypothesis  a  second,  that  several  forged  leaves 
had  been  inserted  in  the  genuine  minutes.  Erasure  and 
interpolation  were  assumed,  and  Archbishop  Theodore  of 
Constantinople  was  declared  to  be  the  author  of  this  great 
falsification. 

If  we  put  the  scattered  fragments  of  Baronius  closely  and 
clearly  together,  we  get  the  following  result :  Shortly  before 
the  beginning  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  Theodore  of 
Constantinople,  on  account  of  his  leaning  to  Monothelitism, 
was  cast  from  the  patriarchal  chair,  and  George  was  raised 
to  it  (see  p.  148).  But  after  George's  death,  soon  after 
the  end  of  the  sixth  Council,  Theodore  succeeded  in 
getting  reinstated,  after  he  had  set  forth  a  confession 
which  —  in  appearance  —  was  orthodox.  Certainly  this 
Theodore  was  not  passed  over  in  silence  by  our  Synod, 
but,  like  his  predecessors,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  etc.,  he  was 
smitten  with  anathema.  Only  three  among  the  later 
patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  Thomas,  John,  and  Constantine, 
were  exempted  from  anathema  in  the  thirteenth  session ; 
from  which  it  follows  that  they  pronounced  the  same  upon 
Theodore,  whom  they  did  not  exempt.  But  after  Theodore 

''proviso."  But  of  "a  proviso"  there  is  no  trace  in  the  letters  of  Leo.  n. ; 
but  he  denned  with  greater  precision  the  fault  of  Honorius,  and  explained 
thereby  the  sense  in  which  the  sentence  of  the  Council  was  to  be  understood. 
Note  to  the  second  edition. 

1  Albert.  Pighius,  Diatriba  de  Actis  vi.  et  vii.  Concilii.  Baron,  ad  ann. 
680,  34 ;  681,  19-34 ;  682,  3-9 ;  683,  2-22.  Barrual,  Du  Pape  et  de  scs 
droits,  pt.  i.  c.  1.  Roisselet  de  Sauclieres,  Histoire  des  Conciles,  Paris  1846, 
t.  iii.  p.  117.  The  hypothesis  of  Baronius  was  received  with  modifications  by 
Boucat,  Tract,  de  Incarnatione,  Diss.  iv.  p.  162,  and  recently  by  Damberger, 
Synchronise  Gesch.  des  Mittclaltcrs,  Bd.  ii.  S.  119  ff. 


192  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

had  again  become  Patriarch,  he  naturally  planned  to  remove 
his  name  from  the  Acts  of  the  Synod,  and  as  he  had  control 
of  the  original  of  the  Acts,1  he  was  in  a  position  to  carry  out 
his  plan.  He  found,  then,  his  own  name  anathematised 
along  with  that  of  Sergius  in  four  places :  in  the  minutes 
of  the  sixteenth  and  eighteenth  sessions,  in  the  ^070?  irpoo-- 
(jxovrjTitcos,  and  in  the  letter  of  the  Synod  to  Agatho 
(see  above,  p.  183,  ISTos.  3—6).  As  there  were  only  a  few 
words  which  testified  against  him,  he  erased  these  from 
the  original,  and  instead  of  his  own  name  inserted  the 
name  of  Honorius,  which  was  about  the  same  size,  and  in 
the  uncial  writing  looked  very  much  the  same,  ONfiPION 
instead  of  0EOA&PON.  He  could  at  the  same  time,  by 
this  means,  give  satisfaction  to  his  hatred  against  Eome. 
But  the  anathema  on  Honorius  must  not  be  allowed  to  fall 
into  the  Acts  like  a  Deus  ex  macliina.  On  the  contrary,  as 
foundation  and  introduction,  a  kind  of  examination  must  be 
inserted  before  it,  and  with  this  end  in  view  Theodore 
invented  the  fiction,  that,  in  the  twelfth  session,  the  letters  of 
Honorius  were  presented  for  examination  (read),  and  then  the 
condemnation  followed  at  the  thirteenth.  This  fiction  could 
best  be  introduced  into  the  minutes  of  the  eleventh  session, 
for  towards  the  end  of  this  session  a  passage  was  read  from  a 
writing  of  Macarius,  the  Monothelite  patriarch  of  Antioch, 
in  which  he  declared  that  the  departed  Pope  Honorius  held 
his  opinions.  Against  this  assertion  the  papal  legates  cer 
tainly  protested  immediately ;  but  Theodore  struck  out  this 
protest,  re-wrote  the  Acts  of  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth 
sessions,  added  his  fiction  to  the  genuine  part  thus  treated, 
and  then  inserted  the  new  leaves  or  sheets  in  the  synodal 
Acts,  instead  of  the  genuine  ones  which  he  cut  out. 

Thus  Baronius.  But,  apart  from  the  synodal  Acts,  as  we 
know,  many  other  ancient  documents  testify  of  the  anathema 
on  Honorius.  And  these,  too,  must  be  set  aside.  First  of  all, 
among  these  are  found  the  two  edicts  of  confirmation,  the 

1  But  the  original  was  not  in  the  patriarchal  archives,  but  in  the  imperial 
palace,  as  we  are  assured  by  the  deacon  and  notary  Agatho,  who  wrote  it,  in  his 
ewiXoyos,  in  Combefis,  Hist.  MonotheL,  in  vol.  ii.  of  his  Auctuarium  Novum, 
p.  199. 


THE   ANATHEMA   OX   POPE   HONORIUS.  193 

imperial  and  the  papal  (see  pp.  184  and  185).  Of  the 
former,  that  of  the  Emperor,  Baronius  says  not  a  syllable ; 
he  seems  not  to  have  known  it.  That  of  Pope  Leo,  on  the 
other  hand,  he  declares  spurious,  and  in  the  same  way  all  the 
other  letters  of  Leo  that  refer  to  this  matter  (see  above,  p.  185). 

But  the  Quinisextum  also,  of  A.D.  692,  the  seventh  and 
the  eighth  (Ecumenical  Councils,  and  different  Popes  and 
other  authorities,  speak  of  the  anathema  on  Honorius  (see 
p.  186).  Certainly,  says  Baronius;  but  Theodore  practised 
his  deception  so  early,  that  even  the  first  copies  of  the 
synodal  Acts  which  were  sent  out  from  Constantinople 
were  falsified,  particularly  the  copy  which  the  papal  legates 
took  back  to  Eome.  Thus  those  later  Synods  and  Popes  had 
merely  falsified  Acts  before  them,  and,  not  suspecting  the 
deception,  they  drew  from  these  the  information  respecting 
the  anathema  on  Honorius. 

I  admit  that  one  might  believe  that  not  Baronius,  but  a 
great  master  of  the  new  critica  mordax,  must  have  invented 
this  highly  complicated  and  more  than  bold  hypothesis, 
this  great  and  heavy  structure  standing  upon  such  weak  feet. 
A  series  of  learned  men  of  name  have  already  exposed 
its  groundlessness,  particularly  Combefis,1  Pagi,2  Garnier,3 
Natalis  Alexander,4  Mamachi,5  the  Ballerini,6  Joseph  Simon 
Assemani,7  Palma,8  Chmel,9  and  others.  On  account  of 
the  importance  of  the  subject,  however,  the  following  new 
examination  may  not  be  superfluous,  which  will  make  use  of 
the  material  brought  together  by  previous  scholars,  bring  out 

1  Combefis  (French  Dominican),  Dissert,  apologctica  pro  Actis  sextee  Synodi, 
p.  66  sqq.  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Historia  Monothelct.  in  his  Auctuarium 
Norum,  t.  ii.  An  extract  from  it  is  given  by  Dupin,  Nouvelle  Bibliotheque, 
t.  vi.  p.  67  sqq. 

-  Pagi,  a4  ann.  681,  7 sqq.;  683,  4  sqq. 

3  Garnier,   De    causa    Honorii,    in   the  Appendix   to  his   edition   of  the 
Liber  diurnus  Romanorum  Pontif.  p.  1680. 

4  Nat.  Alexander,  Historia  Ecdes.  Sec.  vii.  Diss.  ii.  Propos.  i.  p.  514  sqq., 
ed.  Venet.  1778. 

5  Mamachi,  Originum  ct  Antiquitatum,  t.  vi.  p.  5. 
(i  Bullerini,  De  Vi  ac  ratione  Primatus,  p.  306. 

7  Biblioth.  juris  orient,  t.  iv.  p.  119  sqq. 

8  Palma,  Prtelectiones  Hist.  EccL  t.  ii.  pt.  i.  p.  149,  Romse  1839. 

9  Chmel  (Prof.  Prag.),  Vindicia  Concilii  (Ecum.  Sexti,  Pragae  1777. 
v.— 13 


194  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

that  which  is  important  and  striking  in  a  condensed  form, 
point  out  the  objections  with  greater  exactness,  and  add  some 
useful  new  contributions. 

(1)  To  begin,  it  is  suspicious  that  Baronius  is  unable  to 
bring  forward  a  single  witness  from  antiquity  on  his  side.      In 
no  single  Greek  MS.  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth   Council,  in  no 
single  ancient  version,  are  the  passages  relating  to  Honorius 
lacking,  and  not  one  scholar,  not  one  critic,  not  one  prince  of 
the  Church,  not  one  defender  and  commender  of  the  Eoman 
see,  before  Baronius  and  Pighius,  has  even  dreamt  that  the 
Acts  of  the  sixth  Synod  and  the  letters  of  Leo  n.  have  all, 
conjointly  and  severally,  been  shamefully  falsified. 

(2)  The    foundation-stone    on  which  Baronius  builds  is 
not  merely  rotten,  it  is  only  apparent ;  for  the  assertion  that 
"  the  letters  of  Honorius  are  thoroughly  orthodox,  and  there 
fore  an   anathema  upon  them  would  not  be  possible," — this 
fundamental  assumption  is  inadmissible,  and  we  have  already 
pointed  out  the  truth  of  this  matter  (see  above,  p.  55). 

(3)  Apart  from  this,  Baronius   opines   that,  on  the  old 
principle,  Prima  sedes  non  judicatur  a  quoquam,1  such  a  con 
demnation,  especially  of  a  Pope  who  was  dead,  could  only  be 
the  result  of  an  extended  and  thorough  examination.     Even 
in    the    case   of    Theodore  of    Mopsuestia,    it    was    thought 
necessary  to  hold   an   (Ecumenical  Synod  (the  fifth),  and  to 
have  very   full   discussion  at    this,  before   they  pronounced 
anathema  upon  him  after  his  death.      As,  however,  the  matter 
is  represented  in  the  Acts  of  the  sixth   GEcumenical   Synod, 
Honorius  appears  to  have  been  condemned  almost  en  passant, 
after  his  letters  had  been  read,  and  without  careful  examina 
tion  of  their  contents.      Indeed,  the  first  anathema  on  him 
was  pronounced  in   the  thirteenth   session,  even  before  his 
second    letter    had    been    presented.       Besides,   it    was    not 
credible  that  the  Eoman  legates  should  have  concurred  in 
the  condemnation  of  a   Pope  without  protest.      That  would 
certainly   have  rendered   necessary   lengthy   negotiations,  at 
least  between  them  and  the  holy  see,  of  which  there  is  no 
where  any  trace.      Besides  this,  the  Synod,  in  the  thirteenth 
session  and  in  the  letter   to   Pope  Agatho,  as  well  as  the 

1  Of.  on  this,  Hist,  of  Councils,  vol.  i.  p.  128. 


THE  ANATHEMA  ON   POPE  HONORIUS.  195 

Emperor  in  his  letter  to  Leo  n.,  represented  the  matter 
as  though,  with  the  exception  of  Macarius,  only  those  men 
had  been  anathematised  whom  Pope  Agatho  had  designated 
in  his  letter  as  deserving  condemnation,  and  among  those 
the  name  of  Honorius  was  certainly  not  found.  On  the 
contrary,  Agatho  said  that  his  predecessors  had  semper 
strengthened  their  brethren  in  the  faith,  and  when  some 
bishops  of  Constantinople  had  introduced  the  innovation, 
they  had  never  failed  (nunquam  neglexerunt)  to  admonish 
them.1 

To  this  we  answer — 

(a)  That  the  proposition  Prima  secies,  etc.,  which  occurs 
in  a  forged  synodal  Act  of  A.D.  303,  had  universal  pre 
valence  in  antiquity,  is  a  statement  which  is  greatly  in  need 
of  proof.  Pope  Hadrian  n.  himself  allows  that  in  the  matter 
of  heresy  the  higher  may  be  judged  by  the  lower  (see  p.  187)  ; 
and  there  has  actually  happened,  in  the  course  of  centuries, 
much  which  does  not  agree  with  that  principle.  How  they 
thought  and  acted  in  this  respect  at  Pisa  and  Constance,  it 
is  not  necessary  to  discuss. 

(6)  When  Baronius  speaks  of  a  condemnation  of  Honorius 
en  passant,  he  forgets  that  the  public  sessions,  whose  Acts 
we  possess,  were  preceded  by  many  preliminary  discussions. 
The  result  of  these  appeared  in  the  public  sessions. 
Thus  there  was  certainly  much  debate  held  on  the  subject 
of  the  decree  of  the  faith,  which  seems  to  have  been 
accepted  at  the  eighteenth  session  without  any  consulta 
tion,  and  in  consequence  of  this  the  formula,  on  which 
they  agreed,  was  presented  in  the  public  session.  This 
was  the  practice  at  many  Synods,  and,  as  is  well  known, 
at  Trent. 

(c)  Baronius  maintains  that  the  papal  legates  at  the  sixth 
Synod  could  not  possibly,  without  permission  from  Eome, 
have  consented  to  the  condemnation  of  Honorius  ;  but  it 
does  not  follow,  because  the  synodal  Acts  give  us  no  in 
formation  on  the  point,  that  the  legates  had  no  authority. 
In  fact,  several  scholars  are  of  opinion  that  Pope  Agatho 
had,  in  his  private  instructions  to  the  legates,  imparted 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  242  sq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1082  s<j. 


196  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

to  them  this  authority.1  Moreover,  as  is  well  known,  it 
has  often  happened  that  papal  legates  overstepped  their 
authority,  thus,  e.g.,  in  a  very  remarkable  manner  in  the 
negotiations  with  Photius,  A.D.  861,  and  in  the  case  of  the 
marriage  of  King  Lothar  of  Lotharingia,  A.D.  863,  nay,  only 
a  few  years  before  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  Koman 
legates  twice  overstepped  their  powers,  A.D.  649  and  655 
(see  pp.  118  and  128  f.).  If,  however,  the  legates  made  no 
attempt  to  ward  off  the  anathema  from  Honorius,  that  pro 
bably  was  because  the  Greeks  had  also  wanted  to  free  from 
anathema  their  departed  patriarchs,  who  were  more  guilty 
than  Honorius.  They  certainly  attempted  this  at  the  six 
teenth  session. 

(d)  Moreover,  it  is  by  no  means  surprising,  as  Baronius 
thinks,  that  the  name  of  the  deposed  patriarch,  Theodore  of 
Constantinople,  is  not  found  among  those  anathematised  by 
the  Synod.  This  anathema  extended  nomination  only  to  the 
dead,  and  to  those  among  the  living  who  now  still  decidedly 
opposed  the  orthodox  doctrine.  Who  can,  however,  assert 
this  of  Theodore,  of  whom  we  know  that  soon  after  this 
he  was  restored  to  the  patriarchal  chair,  and  gave  in  an 
orthodox  confession  of  faith  ?  The  Emperor  declares,  in  his 
letter  to  Leo  n. :  "  Solus  cum  iis,  quibuscum  abreptus  est, 
defecit  Macarius  "  ; 2  thus  only  Macarius  of  Antioch  and  his 
associates  fell  decidedly  away.  The  names  of  the  latter  are 
repeatedly  specified,  also  by  Anastasius,  in  his  Vita  Agathonis 
(Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  168),  to  which  Baronius  willingly  appeals. 
But  Theodore's  name  is  not  found  there.  They  were  sent  to- 
Home,  and  delivered  to  the  Pope  for  their  improvement,  as 
the  same  Anastasius  tells  us ;  and  again,  Theodore  is  not 
there.  We  may  surely  assume  that  the  former  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  being  higher  in  rank,  would  hardly  have  been 
included  among  the  mere  adherents  of  one  lower  in  rank, 
the  (former)  patriarch  of  Antioch,  without  special  mention 
of  his  name. 

(4)  The  assumption  that  several  leaves  or  sheets  were 

,     l  Pagi,  ad  ann.  681,  8,  9  ;  Walch,  KetzerMst.  Bd.  ix.  S.  423. 

2  Mansi,    t.    xi.  p.    715  ;   Hardouin,    t.    iii.    p.    1462.      I   know  well  that 
Baronius  contests  this  letter  also.     But  more  of  this  hereafter. 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  197 

inserted  between  the  minutes  of  the  eleventh  and  fourteenth 
sessions  is  thoroughly  arbitrary,  a  mere  imitation  of  that 
which  happened  with  the  Acts  of  the  fifth  (Ecumenical 
Synod.  Into  these,  two  entirely  or  partially  forged  letters  of 
Pope  Vigilius,  representing  them  as  favourable  to  the  Mono- 
thelites,  had  been  inserted  by  later  hands.1  Although  so 
long  a  period  as  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  had  elapsed 
since  Vigilius,  the  papal  legates  protested  directly  at  the  sixth 
Council  quite  energetically  against  these  two  letters,  and 
obtained  their  rejection.  The  same  would  certainly  have 
happened  at  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod  in  regard  to 
the  documents  regarded  by  Baronius  as  spurious ;  for 

(a)  The   honour   of    Pope    Honorius    was  thereby  much 
more   assailed  than   the   memory  of  Vigilius  by    those   two 
letters ;   and  nevertheless  the  papal  legates  at   the  seventh 
(Ecumenical    Council    did    not    raise    the    slightest    scruple 
against  them  when  the  anathema  on  Honorius  was  renewed. 
If  they  had  not  been  convinced  of  the  historical  fact,  they 
would  certainly  have  contested,  they  would  have  been  obliged 
to  contest,  the  statement,  that  a  hundred  years  ago  even  a 
Pope  was  anathematised. 

(b)  In   the   case   of  Vigilius,  the  question  was  concerned 
with   two   brief  letters,   each    with    one    false    word,    unam 
operationem,  with  letters  written  far  away  (at  Constantinople), 
and  yet  they  knew  at  Koine,  after  one  hundred  and  thirty 
years,  so  many   had    elapsed  between   the   fifth    and    sixth 
(Ecumenical   Synods,    that    these   had   been  "falsified.     Now, 
however,  the   question   had  regard    to  a  quite  different  and 
more  significant  fact,  whether  the  Pope  had  been  anathemat 
ised;  and,  in  connection  with  this,  is  it  possible  that  so  soon 
they  should  have  been  without  accurate  information  at  Kome  ? 
Baronius  supposes   that  the   falsification   of   the   Acts    took 
place  soon  after  the  close  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council, 
and  that  falsified  Acts  were  even  given  to  the  Koman  legates 
to  take  home  with  them.      Certainly  the  oral  testimony  of 
the   returned  legates  would   immediately  have   brought  the 
forgery  to  light ;  but  no !  the  Komans  believed  the  falsified 
Acts  and  not   the  legates,  and  good-naturedly  accepted  the 

1  See  above,  pp.  154,  156,  170  ff.;  and  vol.  iv.  p.  265. 


198  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

hoax,  that  last  year  the  Pope  had  been  anathematised ! 
What  would  Baronius  have  said  if  anyone  had  in  the  same 
way  expected  him  to  believe  that  Pope  Leo  x.  was  anathemat 
ised  at  the  Council  of  Trent  ? 

(5)  As  it  is  with  the  insertion  of  Acts,  so  also  is  it  with 
the  pretended  erasures.     The  one  is  as  pure  an  invention  as 
the  other,  and  nowhere  is  there  even  the  slightest  trace  of  a 
proof  or  testimony  for  it.     Here,  too,  the  oral  information 
of  the  legates  must  have  discovered  the  deceit. 

Besides,  the  erasure  would  not  have  extended  merely  to 
a  single  word,  as  Baronius  represents  the  matter,  but  to  sen 
tences.  In  the  eighteenth  session  we  have  it  once,  ert  KOI 
TOV  'Ovo)piov  rov  yevojjbevov  Hdrrav  rijs  TT  peer ffvre pas  ' 
in  the  other  passage,  KOI  avv  avrois  ^Ovwpiov  TOV  TTJS  c 
<yev6/ji€vov  TrpoeBpov,  CDS  e/ceivois  eV  TOVTOL?  aKO\ov0^aavTa  ;  and 
in  the  edict  of  confirmation  of  the  Emperor,  "he  anathemat 
ised  the  originators  and  patrons  of  the  new  heresy,  .  .  .  erl 
Be  teal  'Ovwpiov  TOV  TTJ?  Trpea/BvTepas  'Poo^s  rrdirav  */ev6- 
lievov,  TOV  fcaTa  rrdvTa  TOVTOIS  ovvaipeTriv  Kal  avvftpouov 
icai  ftefiaiwTrjv  TTJS  alpeaews."  Almost  the  same  words  are 
found  in  this  letter  of  confirmation  once  more  (see  p.  177). 
Here  an  alteration  from  QEOAflPON  to  ONftPION  was 
by  no  means  sufficient. 

(6)  In  the   interest  of    his  hypothesis,  Baronius  makes 
the  falsifier  Theodore  to   be  restored   to   the  chair  of  Con 
stantinople  about  a  year  earlier  than  this  actually  took  place 
(682  instead  of   683),1  so  that  he  may  have  time  to  exercise 
his  act  of  erasure  and  interpolation   before  the  departure  of 
the  papal  legates.      If  this  chronology  is  incorrect,  and  it  is 
so  according  to  the  testimony  of  the  Chronography  of  Theo- 
phanes  (ad  ann.   676,  secundum  Alexandrines),  which  relates 
that  the  Patriarch  George  lived  after  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  even  into  the  third  year,  and  so  into  the  year   683, 
then   the   hypothesis  of  Baronius  falls  of  itself.     The  papal 
legates  returned  to  Home  with  the  Acts  of  the  Council  in 
the  year  682,  before  the  restoration  of  Theodore.      But  even 
if  the  chronology  of  Baronius  were  true,  the  oral  testimony 
of  the  legates  would  have  brought  the  falsification  to  light. 

1  This  is  proved  by  Pagi,  ad  ann.  682,  7. 


THE  ANATHEMA   ON   POPE  HONOPJUS.  199 

Yes,  even  if  the  legates  had  all  been  faithless,  and  had 
helped  the  deception,  information  as  to  the  truth  would 
have  found  its  way  into  the  world  by  the  many  other  mem 
bers  of  the  Synod,  Greeks  and  Latins.  Or  if  they  all, 
about  two  hundred,  and  also  the  excellent  Emperor,  had 
unanimously  agreed  to  the  deception,  that  would  not  have 
availed  them  !  Even  if  the  truth  had  found  nothing  but 
enemies,  and  the  falsifier  nothing  but  friends  and  helpers  of 
helpers,  not  only  in  all  Asiatics,  Egyptians,  Greeks,  etc.,  but 
even  in  the  Latins  present!  Combefis,  moreover  (I.e.  p.  145), 
attaches  importance  to  this,  that  even  before  the  multi 
plication  of  the  whole  contents  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
Synod,  five  copies  of  its  decree  of  the  faith  were  signed 
in  the  presence  of  the  bishops  by  the  Emperor,  and  were 
sent  to  the  five  patriarchs  (see  above,  p.  177).  These 
copies,  however,  were  older  than  the  restoration  of  Theo 
dore,  and  yet  there  is  found  in  them  the  anathema  on 
Honorius.1 

(7)  Baronius  was  not  acquainted  with  the  671-1X0709  of 
the  Constantinopolitan  notary  and  deacon  Agatho,  first  pub 
lished  by  Combefis  (see  p.  17 7,  note  2).  This  official  declares 
that,  about  thirty-two  years  before,  he  had  served  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  as  secretary,  and  had  written  the  minutes 
and  the  five  copies  of  the  decree  of  the  faith  intended  for 
the  five  patriarchs.  He  is  now  urged  to  draw  up  this  paper 
by  the  rage  with  which  the  new  Emperor,  Philippicus  Bar- 
danes,  persecuted  orthodoxy  and  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod. 
He  had  also  ordered  that  the  names  of  Sergius  and  Honorius, 
and  the  others  anathematised  by  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod 
(KCLI  TWV  \oi7Ttov  crvv  avrols  VTTO  Trjs  avTrjs  ayias  /cat,  OIKOV- 
fjLeviicfjs  crvvoSov  €KJ3\r)6evTa}v  KOI  avade/jLarLarBevrcov),  should 
be  restored  to  the  diptychs.2  This  notary  who  drew  up  the 
minutes  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  must  have  known 
whether  the  Synod  anathematised  Honorius  or  not.  His 

1  This  argument  is  not  quite  stringent,  for  it  were  possible  that  the  copy 
destined  for  Rome  might  be  given  to  the  legates,  and  might  have  remained  with 
them  in  Constantinople  until  the  year  682,  and  so  until  the  restoration  of 
Theodore  (according  to  the  chronology  of  Baronius). 

-  Combefis,  Novum  Auctuarium,  t.  ii.  p.  204  ;  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  190. 


200  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

book  was  composed  long  after  the  death  of  Theodore,  and  so 
was  certainly  not  falsified  by  him. 

(8)  A  principal  evidence  against  the  theory  of  Baronius 
is  given  by  the  letters  of  Leo  n.  He  was  obliged,  therefore, 
to  declare  them  to  be  falsified,  piling  up  chance  upon  chance, 
castle  in  the  air  upon  castle  in  the  air.  Why  he  also  objected 
to  the  letter  of  the  Emperor  against  Leo  l  is  not  quite  clear. 
There  is  nothing  said  there  of  Honorius,  and  it  could  em 
barrass  him  only  so  far  as  the  letter  of  Leo  to  the  Emperor, 
which  he  was  positively  obliged  to  set  aside,  is  an  answer  to 
it.  Against  the  letter  of  Leo  to  the  Emperor,  however,  the 
passage  in  which  testifying  against  Honorius  we  gave  above 
(p.  179),  Baronius  (683,  13-17)  brings  two  objections  : 

(a)  In  a  Latin  translation  from  the  Greek  text  of  the 
letter  there  is  added  at  the  end  the  chronological  note : 
Datum  Nonis  Maii  indictione  x.  (  =  May  7,  682).  In  the  letter 
itself,  however,  it  is  said  that  the  papal  legates  who  were  at 
the  Synod  had  come  back  in  July  682  to  Eome.  This  is  a 
plain  contradiction,  and  therefore  the  letter  is  spurious.  But 
it  is  more  probable  that  there  is  a  slip  of  the  pen  in  that 
chronological  note,  and  that  Indict,  xi.  should  be  read  instead 
of  x. ;  indeed,  it  were  better  to  pay  no  attention  to  it,  as  it 
stands  only  in  one  translation. 

(5)  In  the  same  letter  it  is  twice  said :  "  We  anathemat 
ise  Honorius,  etc.,  and  all  who  died  in  their  error."  This, 
exclaims  Baronius,  is  clearly  a  mark  of  falsification,  for  that 
Honorius  did  not  die  in  heresy  is  proved  by  the  solemn 
celebration  of  his  funeral  in  Eome.  But  Honorius  died 
before  the  final  decision  on  the  theological  controversy  was 
arrived  at :  he  died  as  legitimate  Pope,  accused  of  heresy  by 
no  one ;  on  the  contrary,  justified  and  commended  by  his 
contemporaries,  especially  in  Eome  (see  pp.  52-60). 

(9)  Against  the  Epistola  Leonis  n.  ad  Hispanos  (see 
p.  185),  Baronius  remarks  (638,  18):  The  Pope  says  therein  : 
"  Arcliiepiscopi  sunt  a  nobis  destinati,"  in  order  to  be  present 
at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  how 
ever,  it  was  Agatho,  and  not  Leo,  who  sent  the  legates,  and 
among  these  there  was  no  archbishop.  We  answer  :  (a)  Ndbis 

1  Baronius,  ad  ann.  683,  6. 


THE  ANATHEMA   ON   POPE  HONORIUS.  201 

is  not  to  be  translated,  "  I  in  my  person,"  but,  We  =  the  Roman 
see.  Quite  in  this  manner  does  Gregory  n.  write  to  the 
Emperor  Leo  the  Isaurian :  "  The  Emperor  Constantine 
Pogonatus  wrote  to  us  on  the  holding  of  the  sixth  Synod.1 
(b)  It  is  incorrect  to  say  that  no  archbishop  was  present  as 
deputy  of  the  Pope  and  of  the  West  at  the  sixth  Synod. 
Among  the  legates  proper  there  was  certainly  none  such,  but 
besides  them  Archbishop  John  of  Thessalonica  and  Stephen 
of  Corinth  subscribed  the  Acts,  the  former  as  ftitcdpios  and 
/ofco?,  the  latter  as  Xipyaros  rov  d7roaro\LKov  Opovov 
;  and  Archbishop  Basil  of  Gortyna  in  Crete  subscribed 
as  X^aTo?  TT}?  tpytaf  trwoBov  rov  dTroaroKiKov  Opovov  ri}? 
•rp€<rj3vrepas  'Pa;//,???.2  All  these  three  bishops  belonged  to 
Illyricum  Orientals,  thus  to  the  patriarchate  of  Eome,  and 
therefore  to  the  Koman  Synod  (until  Leo  the  Isaurian),  and 
if  they  did  not  personally  appear  at  the  Koman  Synod  of 
680,  which  preceded  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  and 
appointed  legates  for  it,  yet  they  might  have  received  authority 
either  from  this  Synod  or  from  the  Pope  in  specie.  In  the 
case  of  Basil  of  Gortyna,  the  former  seems  to  have  been  the 
case,  hence  his  subscription,  X^aro?  7%  <rvv68ov,  the  latter 
with  the  two  others,  particularly  as,  without  this,  they  were 
permanent  vicars  of  the  Pope,  the  archbishop  of  Thessalonica 
a  long  time  back  for  Illyricum,  the  archbishop  of  Corinth  for 
Hellas  and  Achaia,  since  the  Emperor  Justinian  i.  had  separ 
ated  those  provinces  from  Illyricum.3  The  statement  objected 
to  is  now  freed  from  all  fault,  if  we  will  only  read  :  "  Archi- 
episcopi  et  episcopi."  If  we  do  not,  we  may  either  hold  that 
archi  is  an  addition  of  the  librarius,  or  assume  that  the  title 
of  archbishop  is  not  used  here  in  the  sense  of  metropolitan, 
but  in  the  wider  meaning,  and  one  which  at  an  early  period 
was  very  common,  of  a  specially  venerable  bishop.  To  this 
day  there  is  a  clear  distinction  in  the  Greek  Church  between 
archbishop  and  metropolitan.  The  former  is  only  a  title  of 
honour. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  968  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  10. 
•  See  above,  p.  150. 

3  Cf.  Petr.  de  Marca,  De  concordia  sacerdotii  et  imperil,  lib.  v.  c.  19,  2,  3 ; 
and  c.  29,  11. 


202  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Baronius  further  (693,  22)  throws  suspicion  upon  the 
letter  of  Leo  ad  Hispanos,  for  this  reason,  that  in  it  is  said 
that  the  Pope  temporarily  sent  to  the  Spaniards  only  some 
passages  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  Council,  the  decree  of  the 
faith,  the  Xcxyo?  Trpoo-^cDvrjTiKos,  and  the  Emperor's  edict  of 
confirmation.  The  rest  was  not  yet  translated  into  Latin. 
The  fourteenth  Synod  of  Toledo,  however,  says  distinctly :  The 
Pope  sent  a  transcript  of  the  gesta  synodalia. — But  might  not 
the  three  principal  documents  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council 
be  named  the  gesta  synodalia  ?  There  is  nothing  said  of 
"  integra  gesta"  although  Baronius  represents  the  matter  as 
though  the  Synod  of  Toledo  had  used  that  expression.1 

(10)  Finally,  the  letter  of  Leo  n.  to  the  Spanish  Ervig  is 
declared  to  be  spurious  by  Baronius  (ad  ann.  683,  20,  21)r 
because  it  asserts   that  the  Emperor  wrote  in  Indiction  ix. 
to    Pope    Agatho  respecting    the    summoning    of    the   sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod.      It  was  not  to  Agatho,  but  to  his  pre 
decessor  Donus  that  the  imperial  letter  was  addressed,  and  it 
belonged,   not  to  the  9th,  but  to  the   6th  Indiction. — This 
objection  has  already  been  answered  by  Combefis  and  Pagi : 
(a)  The  chronological  error  is  easily  explained  by  a  slip  of  the 
pen ;  (b)  the  naming  of  Agatho,  however,  instead  of  Donus  is 
only  a  so-called  compendium  historicum,  since  Donus  was  no 
longer  alive  when  the  imperial  letter  was  despatched,  so  that 
it  was  delivered  to  Agatho,  and  by  him  answered.2 

(11)  Assemani    is    surprised3    that    Baronius    has    not 
brought  in  a  striking  utterance  of  Pope  Nicolas  I.  in  defence 
of  his  hypothesis.     Nicolas  writes,  in  his  eighth  letter  to  the 
Emperor  Michael  in.  of  Constantinople  :  "  His  (the  Emperor's) 
predecessors  had  for  a  long  time  been  sick  with  the  poison  of 
different  heresies,  and  in  regard  to  those  who  wanted  to  bring 
them  deliverance,  they  had  either  made  them  participators  in 
their  error,  as  at  the  time  of  Pope  Conon,  or  had  persecuted  them.4" 

The  allusion  here  made  by  Pope  Nicolas,  Assemani  sup 
poses,  must  have  been  to  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  held  by 

1  Combefis,  I.e.  p.  138  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  683,  14. 

2  Combefis,  I.e.  pp.  154,  164  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  683,  13. 

3  Biblioth.  juris  orient,  t.  iv.  p.  549;  t.  v.  p.  39. 

4  Baron,  ad  ann.  686,  4  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  686,  7. 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON    POPE   HONOEIUS.  203 

Justinian  ii.,  in  the  year  686,  at  which  Justinian,  in  the 
presence  of  the  papal  representative  and  many  patriarchs  and 
archbishops,  etc.,  had  the  original  minutes  of  the  .sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  read,  and  sealed  by  them.1  On  this 
occasion,  Assemani  supposes,  a  deception  might  well  have 
been  practised,  as  Baronius  assumes. — But  Baronius  saw 
quite  correctly,  when  he  did  not  use  this  as  favouring  his 
hypothesis  ;  for  a  falsification  of  the  Acts  in  the  year  686  was 
for  him  about  four  years  too  late.  He  would  then  have  had 
to  allow  that  the  genuine  Acts  had  come  to  Eome  before,  even 
four  years  before, — that  is,  he  would  have  annihilated  his 
own  hypothesis. 

(12)  What  has  so  far  been  said  in  opposition  to  Baronius 
is  also  partially  valid  against  Boucaut,2  who  felt  compelled  to 
introduce  a  modification  into  the  hypothesis  of  Baronius. 
After  the  eleventh  session,  he  supposes,  the  Synod  ceased  to 
be  a  legitima,  and  therefore  the  condemnation  of  Honorius  did 
not  result  from  the  sentence  of  a  valid  (Ecumenical  Synod. 
In  proof  he  adduces  these  facts :  (a)  After  the  eleventh 
session  the  papal  legates  left ;  and  (b)  after  the  end  of  the 
eleventh  session,  one  of  the  papal  legates,  Bishop  John  of 
Portus,  in  the  presence  of  the  Emperor,  etc.,  celebrated  in  the 
Church  of  S.  Sophia  a  solemn  Mass,  according  to  the  Latin 
rite,  in  thanksgiving  for  the  happy  ending  of  the  Synod. 

Both  assertions  are  entirely  groundless ;  for  (a)  it  is  a 
fact,  and  a  glance  at  the  synodal  Acts  show,  that  the  papal 
legates  were  also  present  at  the  twelfth,  thirteenth,  four 
teenth,  in  short,  at  all  the  eighteen  sessions  until  the  close  of 
the  Synod,  and  at  the  last  subscribed  the  Acts  ;  (b)  what 
Boucaut  says  of  the  high  celebration  of  the  papal  legate 
John,  he  borrowed  from  the  Vitce  Pontificum  of  Anastasius  ; 3 
but  here  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  solemn  service  was 
celebrated  at  the  Easter  festival,  and  thus,  not  after  the 
eleventh,  but  after  the  fourteenth  session.4  That  it  was  sup- 

1  Mansi,  xi.  p.  737;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1478. 

'-'  Anton  Boucaut,  Tractat.  De  Incamatione,  Diss.  4,  p.  162.     Cf.  Chmel,  I.e. 
p.  101. 

3  In  the  Vita  Agathonis,  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  168. 

4  Easter  fell  on  April  14  in  the  year  681.     The  eleventh  session  was  held  on 
Marr-h  20;  the  fourteenth,  April 5;  the  fifteenth,  April  16,  681. 


204  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

posed  to  be  a  service  of  thanksgiving  for  the  happy  ending 
of  the  Synod — of  this  Anastasius  knows  not  a  syllable ;  but 
he  certainly  says :  In  order  to  do  honour  to  the  Eoman 
legates,  one  of  them  was  permitted  to  celebrate  the  Easter 
festival  divine  service. 

(13)  More  recently,  Damberger  has  suggested  a  way  of 
his  own,  yet  one  which  in  its  chief  principle  is  akin  to  that  of 
Baronius,  in  his  synchronistic  history  of  the  Middle  Ages 
(Bd.  ii.  S.  119  ff.).  The  first  half  of  the  synodal  Acts,  he 
says,  which  are  fairly  (!)  beyond  suspicion,  extends  only  to 
the  ninth  session  inclusive.  The  Acts  of  the  later  sessions 
have  been  falsified.  The  Greeks  could  not  bear  that  a 
number  of  patriarchs  of  proud  Constantinople  should  be 
anathematised,  and  therefore  in  order,  so  to  speak,  to  restore 
the  equilibrium,  plainly  without  the  knowledge  of  the  papal 
legates  (!),  inserted  the  name  of  Honorius  into  the  anathemat- 
isms  of  the  Acts.  As  the  Acts  now  lie  before  us,  they  show, 
onwards  from  the  tenth  session,  everywhere  "  the  cunning 
of  the  Byzantine  spirit  of  falsehood,"  and  Damberger  "  is 
astonished  that  Western  Church  writers,  and  not  mere  com 
pilers  of  compendia  but  genuine  investigators,  accepted  the 
Acts  in  question  as  genuine."  Only  Gallicans,  he  thinks, 
have  contended  for  the  genuineness  of  this  "  Greek  chaos 
of  Acts,"  because  they  could  nowhere  else  find  proof  for  the 
superiority  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council  over  the  Pope.1  In 
the  further  development  of  his  view,  Damberger  departs 
very  widely  from  Baronius,  maintaining  that  (a)  the  genuine 
Acts  of  the  sixth  Synod  were  certainly  sent  to  Rome,  but  the 
present  Acts  are  a  falsified  extract  from  the  genuine  ;  (b)  the 
seventh  and  eighth  Synods,  and  the  Popes  Leo  n.  and  Hadrian 
ii.,  had  certainly  lauded  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  i.e.  the  genuine  Acts  which  lay  before  them ;  of  this, 
however,  that  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  had  pronounced 
anathema  on  Honorius,  nothing  was  known  to  them  ;  (c)  indeed, 
this  was  never  mentioned  until  Michael  Cerularius  renewed  the 
schism  in  the  eleventh  century  ;  (d)  the  genuine  Acts  have  been 
lost  in  Rome  ;  but  Leo  n.  and  Hadrian  n.  still  possessed  them. 

1  But  even  decided  Curialists,  like  Pennacchi,  I.e.  p.  193  sqq.,  defend  the 
genuineness  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council. 


THE   ANATHEMA   ON   POPE   HONORIUS.  205 

We  have  now  a  series  of  surprises. — The  seventh  and 
eighth  QEcumenical  Synods  knew  nothing  of  the  anathema  on 
Honorius !  But  in  the  decree  of  the  faith  of  the  seventh 
Synod,  it  is  said:  "We  therefore  declare  two  wills  and 
energies  according  with  the  properties  of  the  natures  in 
Christ,  as  also  the  sixth  Synod  in  Constantinople  taught, 
anathematising  Sergius,  Honorius,  Cyrus,  etc."  (d7roKr)pvi;acra 
^epyiov,  'Ovwpiov,  Kvpov,  /c.r.X.).1  And  the  eighth  (Ecumen 
ical  Synod  says  :  "  Sanctam  et  universalem  sextam  synodum 
suscipientes  .  .  .  anathematizamus  .  .  .  Theodorum,  qui  fuit 
episcopus  Pharan,  et  Pyrrhum,  et  Sergium,  .  .  .  atqiie  cum  eis 
Honorium  Romce,  una  cum  Gyro  Alexandrine,  etc."  2 

Whether  Pope  Leo  n.  and  Hadrian  n.  knew  anything  or 
nothing  of  the  anathema  on  Honorius,  everyone  can  answer 
who  has  read  their  utterances  (pp.  180—185).  They  speak 
in  the  most  forcible  manner  of  the  anathematising  of  Honorius, 
and  lived  several  hundred  years  before  Michael  Cerularius. 
If  Damberger  finally  asserts  that  Leo  n.  and  Hadrian  n.  had 
before  their  eyes  the  genuine  Acts  of  the  sixth  Council, 
Baronius  will  never  forgive  him,  for  everything  in  the  past 
has  taught  us  that,  if  Leo  n.  and  Hadrian  n.  possessed  the 
genuine  Acts  of  the  sixth  Synod,  then  not  the  slightest  doubt 
can  be  raised  as  to  the  anathema  on  Honorius. 

]  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  377  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  454. 
"  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  181  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  914. 


BOOK    XVII. 

THE  TIME  FROM  THE  END  OF  THE  SIXTH  (ECUMENICAL 
COUNCIL  TO  THE  BEGINNING  OF  THE  DISPUTE  RE 
SPECTING  IMAGES. 


SEC.  325.   The  Synods  betiveen  A.D.  680  and  692. 

AS  we  know,  shortly  before  the  opening  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  a  Eoman  Synod,  in  October  679, 
had  decided  in  favour  of  S.  Wilfrid,  the  banished  archbishop 
[bishop  ?]  of  York,  and  Pope  Agatho  had  sent  envoys  to 
England  in  order  to  bring  about  the  reinstatement  of  Wilfrid 
and  the  pronouncing  of  anathema  on  Monothelitism  at  an 
English  general  Synod  (vol.  iv.  p.  492).  In  order  to  respond 
at  least  to  a  part  of  the  papal  request,  as  far  as  it  concerned 
Monothelitism,  Archbishop  Theodore  of  Canterbury  held  the 
Synod  of  Heathfield,  already  mentioned  (p.  140);  but  he 
remained,  as  before,  prepossessed  against  Wilfrid,  and  when 
he,  after  being  present  at  the  Eoman  Synod  at  Easter  680 
(p.  140f.),  returned  home,  Theodore  did  so  little  for  him, 
that,  on  the  contrary,  King  Egfrid  of  Northumbria  was 
able,  unhindered,  to  assemble  the  grandees  and  prelates  of 
his  kingdom  in  a  kind  of  Synod,  A.D.  680  or  681,  and  to 
condemn  Wilfrid  to  a  hard  imprisonment.1  He  remained 
nine  months  in  prison,  until,  at  the  intercession  of  the  Abbess 
Ebba,  a  relation  of  the  King,  he  was  set  free  on  the  condition 

1  The  short  original  document  on  this  Synod  is  given  by  Eddius,  in  his 
Vita  S.  Wilifridi,  c.  33,  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  187.  Cf.  Schrodl,  Das  erste 
Jahrh.  dcr  engl.  KircJie,  S.  182,  220,  226,  228,  231;  and  Montalembert,  Lcs 
Moims  de  I' Occident,  vol.  iv. 

206 


THE  SYNODS  BETWEEN  A.D.   680  AND  692.  207 

that  he  would  not  enter  Northumbria.  He  now  became  the 
apostle  of  the  still  heathen  inhabitants  of  Sussex,  and  after 
King  Egfrid's  death  (685),  and  after  Archbishop  Theodore 
had,  in  a  remarkable  manner,  become  reconciled  to  him,  he 
became,  under  King  Alfrid  of  Northumbria,  reinstated  in  his 
property,  his  monasteries,  and  bishoprics — Hexham,  Lindis- 
farne,  and  York.  That  he  soon  became  involved  in  new 
disputes,  we  shall  find  out  later  on. 

When  we  last  encountered  (A.D.  675)  one  of  the  numerous 
Synods  of  Toledo,  the  eleventh,  the  great  King  Wamba  sat 
upon  the  Spanish  throne,  and  Archbishop  Quiricius  upon  the 
metropolitan  throne  of  Toledo.  The  year  680  brought  great 
changes.  The  archbishop  died  in  January  and  S.  Julian 
became  his  successor,  and  King  Wamba  resigned.  One  of  his 
palatines,  Count  Ervig,  a  very  able  man  but  extremely  am 
bitious,  made  an  effort  to  reach  the  throne,  and  brought  to  the 
old  King,  October  14,  680,  a  bad  draught,  to  deprive  him, 
not  of  life,  but  of  reason.  Wamba  immediately  fell  into  a 
state  of  stupefaction,  and,  after  the  fashion  of  the  time,  they 
cut  his  hair  off,  as  from  a  dying  man,  in  order  to  remove  him 
into  the  order  of  penitents  (vol.  iv.  p.  79).  By  means  of 
powerful  restoratives,  Wamba,  after  twenty-four  hours,  came 
back  to  his  senses,  but  voluntarily  remained  among  the 
penitents,  retired  into  the  monastery  at  Pampliega,  and,  not 
suspecting  Ervig's  guilt,  recommended  him  as  his  successor. 
The  grandees  agreed,  and  Archbishop  Julian  anointed  the 
new  King,  October  22,  680.  To  secure  himself  in  the 
possession  of  the  throne,  as  what  he  had  done  had  partly  got 
abroad,  Ervig  convoked  the  bishops  and  grandees  of  the 
kingdom  to  a  national  Synod,  the  twelfth  of  Toledo.  It 
lasted  from  January  9  to  25,  681,  and  there  were  present, — 
in  the  Church  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul, — under  the  presidency 
of  Julian  of  Toledo,  35  bishops  and  archbishops,  4  abbots, 
3  representatives  of  absent  bishops,  and  14  secular  viri 
illi'stres  qfficii  palatini.  The  King  opened  the  assembly  in  his 
own  person  with  a  short  speech,  in  which  he  thanked  the 
bishops  for  their  presence,  and  requested  them  to  find  out 
remedies  for  the  evils  of  the  times.  After  he  had  with 
drawn,  by  his  command  a  lengthy  royal  address,  a  tome,  was 


208  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

read  to  the  Synod.  In  this  the  bishops  were  requested  to 
establish  good  ordinances  in  general,  but  specially  to  examine 
two  laws  :  (a)  the  new  law  in  reference  to  the  Jews  by 
King  Ervig ;  and  (&)  the  older  law  of  Wamba,  that  all  (noble 
men)  who  withdrew  from  service  in  war,  or  deserted  (in 
Warnba's  war  against  his  General  Paul  in  Navarre,  who  had 
rebelled),  should  be  declared  civilly  degraded.  As  by  this 
means  nearly  half  of  all  the  Spaniards,  says  the  tome,  are 
affected  and  incapacitated  from  bearing  witness  and  the  like, 
the  bishops  were  requested  to  consider  whether  an  alteration 
of  this  law  was  not  necessary.  Generally,  they  were  required 
to  examine  and  improve  all  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  the 
rectores  provinciaricm  and  duces  Hispanicc  then  present  should 
introduce  in  their  provinces  the  improvements  recognised  by 
the  Synod.1 

(1)  In  the  first  of  their  13  Capitula  the  Synod  declared, 
first  of  all,  their  agreement  with  the  faith  of  the  Councils  of 
Mcaea,  Constantinople,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  and  recited 
the  Creed  which,  as  they  remarked,  is  also  used  in  the  Mass 
(the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan  with  the  filioqiie}.      It  is  the 
same  which  the  eighth  Synod  of  Toledo  also  placed  at  the 
head  of  their  decrees  (vol.  iv.  p.   470).      Moreover,  in  this 
chapter  the  elevation  of  King  Ervig  was  confirmed  and  all 
the  people  required  to  be  loyal  to  him,  after  the  Synod  had 
seen  the  original  documents,  in  which  the  grandees  of  the 
kingdom  testified  that  King  Wamba  had  received  the  sacred 
tonsure,  and  had  himself,  with  his  own  hand,  selected  Ervig 
as  his  successor,  and  requested  Archbishop  Julian  to  anoint 
him.      The  subsequent  chapters  run  as  follows  :— 

(2)  It  has  often  happened  that  those  who  in  health  have 
desired  the  fruits  of  penitence  have  become  so  sick  that  they 
could  no  longer  speak,  and  have  lost  their  senses.      Out  of 
compassion,  those  belonging  to  them  then  took  the   vow  in 
their  stead  (fraternitas  talium  necessitates  in  fide  sua  suscepit), 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1023  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1715  sqq. ;  Aguirre, 
Cone.  Hisp.  t.  ii.  p.  681  sqq.;  Bruns,  Biblioth.  Ecd.  pt.  i.  p.  31 7  sqq. ;  Coleccion 
cle  Canones  de  la  iglesa  espanola,  por  Gonzalez,  Madrid  1849,  t.  ii.  p.  453  sqq.; 
Gams,  Kirchengeschichte  von  Spanien,  Bd.  ii.  Thl.  ii.  S.  168  ff.  ;  Ferreras, 
Gescli.  von  Spanien,  Bd.  ii.  S.  438  f. 


THE  SYNODS   BETWEEN  A.D.   680  AND  692.  209 

so  that  they  might  be  able  to  receive  the  viaticum.  When, 
however,  they  recover  their  health,  they  defend  themselves 
against  the  act  of  their  friends,  so  as  to  make  themselves  free 
again  from  the  tonsure  and  from  the  religious  habit,  asserting 
that  they  were  not  bound  by  that  vow,  because  they  had  not 
themselves  asked  for  penance  and  had  not  received  it  know 
ingly.  They  ought,  however,  to  consider  that  they  did  not 
ask  for  baptism,  nor  did  they  receive  it  knowingly,  but  only 
in  fide  proximorum  (i.e.  since  those  belonging  to  them  made 
the  promise  for  them).  As,  then,  their  baptism  is  valid,  so 
also  is  the  donum  pcenitentice  (cf.  cc.  7  and  8  of  the  Synod  of 
Toledo,  vol.  iv.  p.  471).  Whoever,  then,  has  received  peni 
tence  in  any  way  may  no  more  return  ad  militare  cingulum 
(said  with  reference  to  King  Wamba,  in  case  he  should  regret 
what  had  been  done).  The  cleric,  however,  who  gives  penance 
to  anyone  who  is  not  in  his  senses,  or  unless,  at  least,  he  has 
requested  penance  by  clear  signs,  is  excommunicated  for  one 
year. 

(3)  In  accordance  with  the  ancient  canons,  the  right  to 
pardon  civil  offenders  stands  only  with  the  King.     Whoever, 
then,  is  pardoned  by  the  King  shall  be  received  back  into 
Church  communion. 

(4)  Archbishop  Stephen  of  Merida  complains  that  King 
Wamba    compelled   him    to   raise   the   monastery   of    Aquis, 
where  the  body  of  S.    Pimenius  reposes,  to  be  a  bishopric. 
The  bishops  declare  that  Wamba  (of  whom  they  use  strong 
language)  had  allowed  several  similar  acts  of  violence,  and 
they  resolve,  with  reference  to  older  canons,  that  the  new 
bishopric  shall  fall  into  disuse,  and  that  Aquis  shall  remain 
a   monastery.       The   Bishop    Cuniuldus  of    Aquis,  who  was 
uncanonically  elevated,  shall  not,  however,  be  punished,  be 
cause  he  did  not    seek  the  bishopric,  but  only    accepted  it 
from    obedience    to  the  King.     In  requital,  another  vacant 
bishopric  shall  be  given  him. 

(5)  Some  priests,  when  they  offer  the  sacrifice  (of  the 
Mass)  several  times  in  one  day,  receive  the  holy  communion 
only  at  the  last  celebration.     This  must  no  longer  take  place, 
under    penalty   of    excommunication    for    a    year    for   every 
omitted  communion ;  and  as  often  as  a  priest  offers  the  sacri- 

v.— 14 


210  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

fice  he  must  receive.     (On  the  saying  of  several  Masses  in 
one  day,  cf.  Binterim,  Denkwiird.  Bd.  iv.  Thl.  iii.  S.  261.) 

(6)  If  a  bishop  dies,  the  see  often  remains  vacant  for  a 
very  long  time,  until  the  King  hears  of  the  death,  and  the 
other  bishops  can  give  their  assent  to  the  new  election  made 
by  the  King.     Therefore,  in  future,  the  archbishop  of  Toledo, 
saving  the  rights  of  the  other  metropolitans,  may  place  in  his 
see  (ordain)  any  bishop  newly  named  by  the  King,  to  whatever 
ecclesiastical  province  he  may  belong,  if  he  holds  it  to  be 
necessary.1      The    bishop    ordained    must,    however,   present 
himself    before    his    own  metropolitan  within  three  months, 
under  penalty  of   excommunication,  in    order  to  receive  in 
structions  from  him.     The  like  applies  also  in  regard  to  the 
other  rectors  of  churches. 

(7)  The  too  severe  law  of  Wamba  in  regard  to  those  who 
avoid  service  in  the  army  shall,  with  consent  of  the  King,  be 
softened,  so  that  those  who  have  thereby  lost  the  qualification 
of  being  able  to  testify,  in  case  they  have  offended  in  nothing 
else,  may  again  become  capable  of  testifying. 

(8)  Whoever   separates   from    his   wife,    except  for    the 
cause  of  fornication,  will  be  excommunicated  until  he  returns 
to  her.     If  he  does  not  do  so  after  repeated  admonition  from 
the  bishop,  he  shall  lose  his  dignity  of  palatine  and  noble 
so  long  as  he  remains  in  his  fault. 

(9)  The  twenty  laws  put  forth  by  King  Ervig  against  the 
Jews  (received  into  the  Leges    WisigotJi.  tit.  12,  3)  are  ap 
proved,  and  shall  henceforth  have  validity  forever,  namely, 
(a)  The  law  in  regard  to  the  renewal  of  the  old  laws  against 
the    Jews ;    (b)   The    law    against    the    blasphemers    of    the 
Trinity  ;  (c)  That  the  Jews  shall  withdraw  neither  themselves 
nor  their   sons   and   servants  from  baptism ;  (d)  That  they 
shall  not  celebrate  the  Passover  after  their  manner,  practise 
circumcision,  or  dare  to  alienate  a  Christian  from  the  faith ; 
(e)  That  they  may  not  celebrate  their  Sabbaths  and  feasts ; 
(/)  They  must   abstain    from    work   on   Sundays ;  (g)  They 
must    make    no    difference    between    meats ;  (A)  nor    marry 
relations ;  (i)  nor  attack  our  religion,  nor  defend  their  sects, 

1  With  this  ordinance  begins  the  primacy  of  Toledo.     Cf.  Gams,  Kircheng. 
von  Spanien,  Bd.  ii.  Thl.  ii.  S.  215ff, 


THE   SYNODS   BETWEEN   A.D.   680  AND  692.  211 

nor  go  abroad  that  they  may  be  able  to  apostatise  again; 
(Jc)  That  no  Christian  may  receive  from  a  Jew  a  gift  that  is 
injurious  to  the  faith ;  (I)  That  no  Jew  may  read  the  books 
which  are  rejected  by  the  Christian  faith ;  (m)  nor  have  any 
Christian  slaves ;  further,  (n)  The  law  relating  to  the  case 
that  a .  Jew  gives  himself  out  for  a  Christian,  and  therefore 
will  not  emancipate  the  Christian  slave ;  (o)  The  law  relating 
to  the  confession  of  faith  of  converted  Jews,  and  the  oath 
which  they  have  to  take;  (p)  The  law  relating  to  those 
Christians  who  are  slaves  of  Jews,  and  do  not  confess  them 
selves  as  Christians ;  (q)  That  no  Jew,  unless  he  have 
authority  from  the  King,  may  rule  or  punish  a  Christian ; 
(r)  That  slaves  of  Jews,  if  they  become  Christians,  shall  be 
free ;  (s)  That  no  Jew  may  rule  as  milieus  or  actor  (steward) 
over  a  Christian  family  (of  servants) ;  (t)  That  every  Jew 
who  comes  into  the  kingdom  must  present  himself  im 
mediately  before  the  bishop  or  priest  of  his  locality,  and  that 
the  bishop  shall  call  the  Jews  before  him  on  appointed  days, 
and  so  forth. 

(10)  With  assent  of  the  King,  the  right  of  asylum  in 
churches  is  renewed,  and  thirty  steps  before  the  gates  of  the 
church  declared  to  belong  to  the  place  of  asylum. 

(11)  The  relics  of  heathenism  shall  be  rooted  out.      Ser 
vants  who  still  addict  themselves  to  idolatrous  worship  shall 
be  beaten  and  placed  in  irons.     If  their  masters  do  not  punish 
them,  these  shall  be  excommunicated.     If  a  freeman  practises 
idolatry,  he  must   be   punished  with   excommunication   and 
severe  banishment. 

(12)  In    every    province    the    bishops     shall    annually 
assemble,  on  the  1st  of  November,  in  a  provincial  Synod. 

(13)  These  decrees  shall  for  ever  remain  in  force.     May 
God   the  Lord,  to  whom  be  honour,  and  who   inspired  the 
Synod,  grant  to  the  King  a  happy  reign ! 

King  Ervig  confirmed  and  subscribed  the  Acts  of  the 
Synod  on  January  25,  the  closing  day  of  the  assembly,  with 
the  remark,  that  all  their  decrees,  from  that  day  onwards, 
should  come  in  force.1 

The  biographer  of  S.  Ansbert,  archbishop  of   Eouen,  the 

1  Hardouin,  Mausi,  etc.,  II. cc. 


212  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

monk  Aigrad  assigns  to  the  year  682  a  Synod  held  at  Eouen 
(fiothomagensis),  under  the  presidency  of  the  said  archbishop, 
which  drew  up  many  beneficial  decrees,  and  accorded  to  the 
monastery  of  Fontenelle  a  privilege  with  regard  to  the  free 
election  of  its  abbot.  Nothing  is  known  more  exactly  on  the 
subject ;  and  moreover,  the  date  of  this  assembly  is  very 
doubtful.  Sirmond  assumed  the  date  of  682,  which  certainly 
is  only  interpolated  in  the  old  biography  of  Aigrad ;  Labbe, 
on  the  other  hand,  decided  for  692  ;  Mabillon,  for  689  ; 
Bessin,  the  editor  of  the  provincial  Synods  of  Eouen,  wavered 
between  689  and  693.1 

Still  less  do  we  know  of  a  Synod  at  Aries,  which  Mansi, 
reckoning  from  probability,  ascribed  to  the  year  682.2 

At  the  invitation  of  King  Ervig  of  Spain,  already  men 
tioned,  a  great  special  national  Synod,  the  thirteenth  of  Toledo, 
was  opened  on  November  4,  683,  again  in  the  Church  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul.  Like  the  twelfth,  this  was  also  a 
concilium  mixtum,  Synod  and  Parliament  (Diet)  at  once. 
Under  the  presidency  of  Julian  of  Toledo,  there  were  pre 
sent  48  bishops  and  archbishops  from  the  provinces  of 
Toledo,  Braga,  Merida,  Seville,  Tarragona,  and  Narbonne, 
27  representatives  of  bishops,  several  abbots,  and  26  secular 
grandees.  Again  the  King  began  with  a  short  address, 
and  then  presented  to  the  Synod  a  tome,  in  which  the 
points  were  indicated  which  he  wished  to  be  handled. 
In  particular,  he  laid  before  the  Synod,  for  its  advice, 
several  sketches  of  laws  respecting  matters  of  State.  The 
Synod,  first  of  all,  again  recited  the  Niceno-Constantino- 
politan  Symbol,  and  then  drew  up  the  following  thirteen 
Gapitula : — 

(1)  In  regard  to  those  who,  under  King  Wamba,  attached 
themselves  to  the  rebellion  of  General  Paul  (p.  208),  and  there 
fore  were  punished  with  loss  of  position  and  confiscation  of  goods, 
the  Synod  decrees,  in  agreement  with  King  Ervig,  the  resti 
tution  of  them  and  their  children.  Also,  the  goods  of  which 
the  royal  exchequer  took  possession  shall  be  restored  to  them, 
with  the  exception  of  those  which  the  King  has  already  pre- 

1  Cf.  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1043  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1727. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  1046. 


THE   SYNODS   BETWEEN  A.D.   680  AND  692.  213 

sented  to  others.     The  same  avails  for  those  declared  to  be 
degraded  under  King  Chintila. 

(2)  In  agreement  with  the  King,  it  is  ordained  that  no 
palatine  and  no  cleric  shall  be  deprived  of  his  office,  chained, 
flogged,  or  deprived  of  his  goods  and  thrown  into  prison,  as 
has  often  happened  hitherto,  by  an  arbitrary  act  of  the  King. 
On  the  contrary,  he  must  be  placed  before   the  assembly  of 
bishops,    seniors,   and    guardians    (belonging   to   the    highest 
officials  of    the   palace  ;    see  Du   Cange,   Gloss.,  s.v.\  and  be 
judged  by  these.     Also,  the  other  nobles,  who  have  not  the 
dignity  of  palatine,  are  to  be  judged  in  a  similar  manner  ;  and 
even  if  the  King,  as  is  the  custom,  strikes  them,  they  shall  not 
for  that  reason  be  deprived  either  of  honour  or  of  goods.     If 
in  future  a  King  violates  this  decree,  he  becomes  liable  to 
excommunication. 

(3)  The  Synod   confirms   the   royal   edict   by  which  the 
taxes  long  due  to  the  State,  up  to  the  first  year  of  the  reign 
of  Ervig,  are  remitted.     (The  royal  decree  referred  to  is  given 
as  an  appendix  to  the  synodal  Acts.) 

(4)  On  the  second  day  the  Synod  confirmed  the  edict  of 
Ervig  for  the  safety  of  his  own  family ;  and  decreed :  Eternal 
anathema  shall  strike  him  who  shall  persecute,  rob,  strike, 
injure,  or  forcibly  remove  into  the  state  of  penance,  the  sons 
of  the  King,  the  Queen,  or  any  one  belonging  to  the  royal  house. 

(5)  No  one,  not  even  a  King,  may  marry  the  widow  of  the 
departed  King,  or  have  intercourse  with  her,  under  penalty  of 
exclusion  from  all   communion  with   Christians  and   eternal 
damnation ;  for  the  Queen,  who  was  mistress,  shall  not  serve 
the  desire  of  one  of  her  subjects ;  and  as  wife  and  husband 
are  one  body,  the  body  of  the  dead  King  must  not  be  defiled 
in  his  widow. 

(6)  As  it  previously  happened  that  slaves  and  freedmen 
were  raised  to  the  office  of  palatine,  through  favour  of  the 
King,  and  then  persecuted  their  former  masters,  such  eleva 
tion  may  not  take  place  in  the  future.      Only  the  slaves  or 
freemen  belonging  to  the  exchequer  may  henceforth  be  pro 
moted  to  such  offices  (because  they  previously  had  no  other 
master  than  the  King,  and  were  not  in  the  position  of  private 
servants). 


214  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(7)  Some  clergy  have  a  mind  to  revenge  themselves  on 
those  who  oppose  or  injure  them  by  stopping  divine  service, 
stripping  the  altars,  extinguishing  the  lights.      This  (and  so 
an  interdict)  is  henceforth  forbidden,  under  penalty  of  degrada 
tion   and  deposition.      Only  one  who  does   so   (stops  divine 
service)  from  fear  of  the  desecration  of  the  sanctuary,  or  on 
account  of  hostile  attacks   or  siege,  or   because  in  his   con 
science  he  knows  himself  to  be  unworthy  to  celebrate  divine 
service,  is  free  from  such  penalty. 

(8)  If  a  bishop  is  summoned  by  the  metropolitan  or  King, 
whether  to  the  celebration  of  a  festival,  as  Easter,  Pentecost, 
or  Christmas,  or  for  the   transaction  of  business,  or  for  the 
ordination  of  a  new  bishop,  etc.,  and  does  not  appear  on  the 
appointed  day,  he  will  be  excluded  from  the  communion  of 
those  whom  he  neglected  (King  or  metropolitan).     If  he  was 
sick  or  the  roads  impassable,  he  must  prove  this  by  witnesses. 

(9)  The   decrees    of    the    twelfth    Synod   of    Toledo   are 
confirmed   anew,  particularly  also  that  de  Concessa   Toletano 
pontifici  generalis  synodi  potestate,  ut  episcopi  alterius  provincice 
cum  conniventia  principum  in  urbe  regia  ordinentur  (see  above, 
p.  209). 

(10)  On   the   third  day  it  was   decreed:   If  a  bishop  or 
priest  has,  in  a  sickness,  entered  the  state  of  penitents,  but  in 
so  doing  has  known  himself  guilty  of  no  crimen  mortale,  he 
shall,  after  recovering  again,  return  to  the  priestly  office,  after 
he  has  received,  through  the  metropolitan,  the  usual  recon 
ciliation  of  penitents. 

(11)  If  any  one  receives  a  foreign  or  escaped  cleric  or 
monk,  remotum  se  a  suis  officiis  noverit  esse  (i.e.  he  falls  under 
the  suspensio  latce  sentential.     Of.  Kober,  Die  Suspension,  1862, 
S.  48f.). 

(12)  If  any  one  takes  proceedings  against  his  own  bishop, 
he  may  appeal  to  the  metropolitan.     A  bishop,  however,  who 
thinks  himself  aggrieved  by  his  metropolitan,  may  bring  his 
cause  before  a  strange  metropolitan.      If  two  strange  metro 
politans  have  refused  him  a  hearing,  he  may  appeal  to  the 
King. 

(13)  These   decrees   shall  remain  permanently  in  force. 
Honour  to  God.     Thanks  to  the  King. 


THE   SYNODS  BETWEEN  A.D.  680  AND  692.  215 

All  present  subscribed  the  minutes,  and  the  King  con 
firmed  the  Synod  in  a  document  of  Nov.  13,  683.1 

Pope  Leo  ii.  died,  after  reigning  not  quite  a  year,  on 
July  3,  683,  and  his  successor,  Benedict  ii.,  immediately 
instructed  the  notary  Peter  to  require  the  Spanish  bishops, 
as  Leo  ii.  had  recommended,  to  recognise  and  subscribe  the 
decrees  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council.  As  we  saw  above 
(pp.  185,  201),  it  is  possible  that  the  letter  which  is  generally 
ascribed  to  Leo  II.  may  belong  to  Pope  Benedict.  King 
Ervig  did  not  remain  inactive.  It  was  not,  indeed,  possible 
to  convoke  a  Spanish  general  Synod,  as  Ervig  wished ;  but 
he  requested  the  particular  metropolitans  to  respond  to  the 
wish  of  the  Pope  at  provincial  Synods.  The  ecclesiastical 
province  of  Toledo  (here  called  Carthagenian ;  see  vol.  iv.  sec. 
239)  was  commanded  to  take  the  lead,  the  other  provinces 
were  to  accept  the  decrees  of  Toledo,  and  for  this  reason  every 
metropolitan  had  to  send  a  vicar  to  the  Synod  of  Toledo. 
This  was  done,  and  the  fourteenth  Synod  of  Toledo  assembled 
in  November  684.  There  were  present  seventeen  bishops  of 
the  province  of  Toledo  (Archbishop  Julian  at  their  head),  six 
abbots,  and  the  vicars  of  the  metropolitans  of  Tarragona, 
Narbonne,  Merida,  Braga,  and  Seville,  also  representatives  of 
two  absent  suffragans  of  Toledo. 

(1)  In  the  first  Capitulum  the  bishops  mention  the  convo 
cation  of  this  Synod  by  King  Ervig,  ob  confutandum  Apol- 
Imaris  dogma  pestiferum  (thus  they  describe  Monothelitism). 

(2)  That  Pope  Leo  had  sent  them  a   transcript  of  the 
gesta  synodalia  of  the  Council  of  Constantinople   (the  sixth 
(Ecumenical)  with  a  letter,  and  had  requested  their  recognition 
of  these  gesta.2 

1  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1059  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1735  ;  Aguirre,  I.e.  p.  694 
sqq.;  Brans,  I.e.  p.  333;   Gonzalez,   Coleccion  de  Can.  de  la  iglcsa  espanola, 
Madrid  1849,  t.  ii.  p.  494 sqq. ;  Gams,  I.e.  S.  172  f.,  219  f. ;  Ferreras,  I.e.  S.  443  ff. 

2  Baronius,  ad  ann.  683,  22,  supposes  that  under  gesta  synodalia  we  are  to 
understand  a  complete  copy  of  all  the  documents  of  the  sixth  Council,  and 
so  the  Synod  of  Toledo  would  contradict  the  letter  of  Pope  Leo  n.  to  the 
Spaniards,  which  speaks  of  only  some  documents  sent.     This  letter,  therefore, 
would  be  spurious.     Cf.  above,  p.  201.     But  Pagi,  ad  ann.  683,  14,  rightly 
solves  the  supposed  contradiction.     Pope  Leo  sent  the  principal  Acts  (decrees) 
of  the  sixth  Council,  and  these  might  quite  properly  be  called  the  gesta 
dalia. 


216  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(3)  That  the  documents  sent  from  Kome  had  reached  them, 
when  they  had  ended  a  general  Synod  (the  thirteenth).     This 
and  the  bad  weather  had  rendered  an  early  new  generel  Synod 
impracticable.       But  they  had,  in  separate  assemblies,  read 
those  documents,  and  had  approved  the  doctrine  contained  in 
them  of  two  wills  and  operations  in  Christ. 

(4)  That  a  Spanish  general  Synod  should  have  examined 
and  adopted  these  gesta  synodalia. 

(5)  As,  however,  such  a  Synod  was  not  possible,  another 
way  had  been  chosen ;  and  first,  the  bishops  of  the  Carthagen- 
ian  (Toledan)  province,  in  presence  of  the  vicars  of  the  other 
metropolitans,  had  compared  those  gesta  with  the  decrees  of 
the  earlier  Councils,  and  found  them  fully,  and  almost  literally 
in    agreement    with     the    faith    of     Nicaea,    Constantinople, 
Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon. 

(6,  7)  The  Acts  of  the  new  Council  were  therefore,  in 
so  far  as  they  agree  with  the  old  Synods,  honoured  by  them, 
and  the  new  Synod  placed  in  order  after  that  of  Chalcedon 
(the  fifth  (Ecumenical  Synod  was  not  at  that  time  fully 
recognised  by  the  Spaniards:  see  vol.  iv.  p.  365). 

(8—11)  The  bishops  exhort  their  flocks  immediately  to 
acknowledge  in  simplicity  the  true  faith  in  regard  to  the 
natures  and  wills  in  Christ,  which  they  present  in  brief,  negue 
enim  qucc  sunt  divina,  discutienda  sunt,  sed  credenda. 

(12)  Glory  be  to  God.     God  save  the  King!1 

To  the  same  year,  684,  belongs  another  Irish  Council,  of 
which  we  merely  know  that  (but  not  why)  it  was  held,  and 
an  English  at  Twyford,  under  the  presidency  of  Archbishop 
Theodore  of  Canterbury.  At  the  latter,  Bishop  Trumbert  of 
Hexham  was  deposed,  for  reasons  not  known  to  us,  and  the 
pious  hermit,  Cuthbert  of  Fame,  who  long  resisted,  was  raised 
to  be  his  successor.  At  a  French  [Frankish  ?  ]  Council  at 
Villeroi  (Villa  Regia),  in  the  year  684  or  685  (according  to 
others,  678),  several  bishops  were  deposed  through  the 
violence  of  the  Major  Domus  Ebroin.  S.  Leodegar  (Leger) 
of  Autun  did  not  dare  to  appear  at  the  assembly,  but  was 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1086  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1754  sqq.;  Aguirre,  I.e.  p.  717 
sqq. ;  Brims,  I.e.  p.  349  sqq.;  Gonzalez,  Coleccion  de  Can.  I.e.  p.  520  sqq.; 
Ferreras,  I.e.  S.  448. 


THE   SYNODS  BETWEEN  A.D.   680  AND  692.  217 

separated  by  King  Theoderic,  tried,  and  condemned  to 
death.1 

An  old  authority  in  Galanus  gives  a  short  notice  of  an 
Armenian  Conciliabulum  at  Manaschierte  which  sanctioned 
monophysitism,  about  the  year  687.2 

In  the  year  687  died  King  Ervig  of  Spain,  and  on  his 
deathbed  designated  as  his  successor  his  daughter's  husband 
Egiza,  a  nephew  of  Wamba.  The  palatines  consented,  and 
Egiza  was  solemnly  anointed  by  Archbishop  Julian  on 
November  20,  687.  He  convoked  the  fifteenth  Synod  of 
Toledo,  a  Spanish  general  Council,  at  which  sixty-one  bishops, 
several  abbots  and  representatives  of  bishops,  also  seventeen 
secular  grandees,  were  present.  The  assembly,  presided  over 
by  Julian  of  Toledo,  was  celebrated  in  the  principal  Church 
of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul,  and  began  on  May  11,  688.  King 
Egiza  opened  it  in  his  own  person,  spoke  a  few  friendly 
words,  and  presented  a  tome,  and  then  departed.  This  tome 
represented  to  the  Synod  that  the  King  had  taken  two  oaths, 
which,  he  feared,  could  not  be  kept  together.  First,  he  had 
sworn  to  his  predecessor  Ervig,  when  he  gave  him  his 
daughter  Cixlona  to  wife,  in  all  things  to  protect  the  sons 
of  Ervig.  But  a  second  oath  Ervig  had  exacted  from  him  on 
his  deathbed,  namely,  to  be  just  towards  every  one.  But 
the  case  might  arise  that  he,  in  order  to  be  just  to  every  one, 
might  have  to  decide  here  and  there  against  Ervig's  sons. 
On  this  subject,  and  also  on  other  points,  the  Synod  was 
requested  to  give  its  advice. 

After  the  reading  of  the  tome,  the  Synod  again  recited 
the  Niceno-Constantinopolitan  Creed,  and  then  passed  on 
to  some  doctrinal  points.  In  order  to  declare  their  agree 
ment  with  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  the  Spanish  bishops  had,  two  years  before,  sent  to 

^lansi,  I.e.  pp.  1058,  1095;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1758;  Schrodl,  I.e.  S.  211; 
D.  Pitra,  Histoire  de  St.  Legcr.  [See  also  Art.  "  Leodegarius "  in  Diet,  of 
Christian  Biography.] 

-  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1099.  Pope  Benedict  xn.  speaks,  in  his  Libellus  ad 
Armenos  of  A.D.  1341,  of  an  Armenian  Synodus  Manesgucrdensis,  in  which,  612 
years  before,  and  therefore  in  the  year  729,  it  had  been  laid  down  that  in  the 
holy  Mass  the  wine  should  not  be  mixed  with  water.  See  Raynald,  ad  aim. 
1341,  n.  69,  sec.  71. 


218  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Kome  a  memorial  drawn  up  by  Archbishop  Julian  of  Toledo 
(Liber  responsionis  fidei  nostrce,  also  entitled  Apologia,  now 
lost).  It  consisted  of  four  chapters,  and  Pope  Benedict  IL, 
who  thought  he  discovered  some  objectionable  expressions  in 
it,  requested  an  alteration  of  the  passages  in  question.  The 
Spaniards,  however,  showed  so  little  inclination  to  respond  to 
this  wish,  that,  on  the  contrary,  they  defended  the  inculpated 
expression  in  a  manner  by  no  means  courteous.  In  the  first 
chapter  of  their  memorial,  the  Pope  had  found  fault  with  the 
words :  Vohmtas  genuit  wluntatem.  They  now  say,  he  had 
read  it  too  hastily,  and  had  had  too  much  in  view  the  analogy 
of  man.  In  the  case  of  a  man,  certainly,  we  could  not  say, 
The  will  begets  the  will,  but  The  will  goes  forth  ex  mente. 
With  God,  however,  it  is  otherwise,  as  His  will  and  thought, 
etc.,  are  one.  Athanasius  and  Augustine  too  had  similarly 
expressed  themselves. 

In  the  second  chapter  of  their  apology,  they  had  spoken 
of  three  substances  in  Christ,  and  the  Pope  had  found  fault 
with  this.  Evidently  he  was  wrong,  they  said.  Every  man 
consisted  of  two  substances,  body  and  soul ;  but  in  Christ 
there  was  a  third  substance,  the  divine  nature.  Here,  too, 
the  Fathers  and  the  Holy  Scriptures  also  were  on  their  side. 
Finally,  they  said,  they  had  taken  the  third  and  fourth 
chapters  almost  literally  from  Ambrose  and  Fulgentius ;  and 
these  Fathers  no  one  would  find  fault  with.  If  anyone 
should  not  be  in  accord  with  their  doctrine,  taken  from  the 
Fathers,  they  would  have  no  dispute  with  him :  their  answer 
could  displease  only  ignorant  rivals. 

The  Synod  then  gave  their  judgment  in  regard  to  the 
two  oaths,  that  in  cases  of  collision  the  second  should  take 
precedence  of  the  first.  As,  however,  Egiza  wished  informa 
tion  respecting  a  third  oath  which  Ervig  had  required  from 
the  whole  people  for  the  securing  of  his  sons,  the  Synod 
examined  also  this  subject,  and  found  nothing  in  it  which 
was  doubtful  or  unrighteous.1  Archbishop  Julian  now  drew 
up  a  second  apology,  in  order  to  remove  all  the  doubts  of  the 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  7  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1749  sqq.;  Aguirre,  I.e.  p. 
721  sqq.;  Bruns,  I.e.  p.  353  sqq.;  Coleccion  de  Canones,  I.e.  p.  528  sqq.; 
Fen-eras,  I.e.  S.  450  ff.;  Gams,  I.e.  S.  175  f. 


ACTS   OF   SIXTH   (ECUMENICAL   COUNCIL  EXAMINED.         219 

Eomans  with  respect  to  the  orthodoxy  of  Spain,  and  sent  it  to 
Kome,  when  Pope  Sergius  (687-701)  declared  himself  in  full 
agreement  with  it.  Soon  afterwards,  A.D.  690,  S.  Julian  died, 
and  the  former  Abbot  Sisebert  became  archbishop  of  Toledo.1 
On  November  1,  691,  at  the  command  of  King  Egiza, 
the  bishops  of  the  Spanish  ecclesiastical  province  of 
Tarragona  assembled  in  a  provincial  Synod  at  Saragossa 
(Ccesaraugustana  in.),  and  decreed  : 

(1)  The  old  law,  that  churches,  like  clerics,  may  be  con 
secrated  only  on  Sundays,  remains  in  force. 

(2)  So  also  the  law  that  bishops  residing  near  at  hand 
shall  at  Easter  have  recourse  to  their  primate  (metropolitan), 
and  celebrate  the  festival  in  common  with  him. 

(3)  Secular  persons  may  not  be  received  in  monasteries 
as  guests,  except  in  houses  specially  destined  for  that  purpose. 

(4)  If  a  bishop  has  emancipated  slaves  belonging  to  the 
Church,  they  must,  after  his  death,  present  their  letters  of 
emancipation  to  his  successor. 

(5)  The  ordinance  of  the  thirteenth  Synod  of  Toledo  in 
regard  to  widowed  queens  not  only  remains  in  force,  but  is 
extended  to  this :  that  every  widowed  queen  shall,  immedi 
ately  after  the  death   of   her   husband,  put  off   her  secular 
habit,  and  put  on  the  religious,  and  enter  a  monastery ;  for 
it   is   intolerable,  what   often   happens,  that    former   queens 
should  be  insulted,  persecuted,  and  badly  treated.2 


SEC.   326.   Examination  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council. 

In  the  year  685  died  the  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus, 
and  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Justinian  n.,  who,  in  the  second 
year  of  his  reign  (687),  convoked  a  great  assembly  of  clerics 
and  laymen,  in  order  to  protect  the  Acts  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council  from  falsification.  We  learn  this  from 
his  letter  to  Pope  John  v.  in  reference  to  this  subject,  which 
certainly  is  extant  only  in  a  bad  and  in  many  parts  scarcely 

1  Ferreras,  I.e.  453  f. ;  Dupin,  Nouvelle  Biblioth.  t.  vi.  p.  37  sq.  ed  Mons. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  42  sq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.1779;  Aguirre,  I.e.  p.732;  Bruns,  I.e. 
pt.  ii.  p.  102  ;  Coleccion  de  Canones,  etc.  t.  ii.  p.  132  sqq. ;  Ferreras,  I.e.  S.  455. 


220  HIST011Y  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

intelligible  Latin  translation.  Pope  John  v.  had  himself,  as 
Eoman  deacon  and  legate,  been  present  at  the  sixth  Synod ; l 
but  now,  when  the  Emperor  wrote  to  him,  he  was  already  dead, 
but  the  news  of  this  had  not  reached  Constantinople.  The 
Emperor's  letter  was  received  by  his  successor,  Pope  Cohon. 
The  Emperor  says  :  "  Cognitum  est  nobis  quia  synodalia  gesta 
eorumque  definitionem,  quam  et  instituere  noscitur  sanctum 
sextum  concilium  .  .  ,  apud  quosdam  nostros  judices  re- 
miserunt.  Neque  enim  omnino  prsevidimus,  alterum  aliquem 
apud  se  detinere  ea,  sine  nostra  piissima  serenitate,  eo  quod 
nos  copiosa  misericordia  noster  Deus  custodes  constituit 
ejusdem  immaculatse  Christianorum  fidei."  This  means : 
"  I  have  learnt  that  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod 
have  been  sent  back  by  some  to  the  Judices  who  had  lent 
them  to  them.  I  did  not,  indeed,  foresee  that  anyone  would 
venture  to  have  these  Acts  without  my  permission ;  for  God, 
in  His  abundant  mercy,  has  appointed  me  to  be  the  keeper 
of  the  unfalsified  faith  of  Christ." 2  The  Emperor  proceeds 
to  say  that  he  has  now  convoked  the  patriarchs,  the  papal 
deputy,  the  archbishops  and  bishops,  and  many  officials  of 
State  and  officers  of  the  army,  in  order  to  have  the  Acts  of 
the  sixth  Synod  read  to  them  and  have  them  sealed  by  them. 
He  had  then  taken  them  out  of  their  hands,  in  order  to 
prevent  all  falsification,  and  he  was  desirous,  by  God's  assist 
ance,  to  carry  the  matter  through.  He  communicated  this 
to  the  Pope  for  his  information.3  This  matter  is  also 

1  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  440,  is  mistaken  when  he  identifies  him 
with  the  legate,  Bishop  John  of  Portus.     The  facts  are  correctly  stated  by 
Anastasius  in  his  Vita  Joannis  v.,  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1092. 

2  It  is  differently  understood  by  Assemani  in  his  BiUioth.  juris  Orient,  t. 
v.  p.  37:    "The  Acts  are  no  longer  preserved   anywhere,  unless  with   some 
imperial  Judices  and  the  Emperor  himself,  but  not  in  the  patriarchal  archives." 
But  the  word  is  remiserunt,  not  remanserunt. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  737  ;   Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.   1478  ;   Assemanni,  I.e.  t.  iv. 
p.  599  sqq.;  t.  v.  p.  39  sq.,  supposes  that  the  deception  of  the  papal  legates, 
of  which  we  speak  below  (p.  238),  had  now  happened.     In  what  the  error,  to 
which  they  now  assented,  consisted,  Assemani  gives  no  hint ;  but  thinks  that 
it  was  on  the  same  occasion  as  that  on  which  the  remark  in  the  Acts  of  the 
eighteenth  session  was  added  :  "George  of  Sebaste,  then  representative  of  the 
patriarchal    administrator  of   Jerusalem,    became    subsequently  patriarch    of 
Antioch" — an  addition  which  is  found  in  all  the  still  extant  manuscripts  of  the 
synodal  Acts,  Latin  and  Greek.     (Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  683,  and  Hardouin,  t.  iii. 


THE   QUINISEXT  OR  TRULLAN  SYNOD,  A.D.   692.  221 

mentioned  in  the  Vita  Cononis  Papce  (in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1098), 
with  the  words  :  "  Hie  (Conon)  suscepit  divalem  jussionem 
(i.e.  an  imperial  decree)  domni  Justiniani  principis,  per 
quern  significat  reperisse  acta  sanctse  sextse  synodi,  et  apud  se 
habere."  The  Acts  (certainly  the  originals)  had  thus  been 
previously  imparted  to  others,  but  now  had  come  again  into 
the  hands  of  the  Emperor. 

SEC.  327.   The  Quinisext  or  Trullan  Synod,  A.D.  692. 

A  little  later,  the  Emperor  Justinian  n.  summoned  the 
Synod  which  is  known  under  the  name  of  the  Quinisext.1 
It  was,  like  the  last  (Ecumenical  Synod,  held  in  the  Trullan 
hall  of  the  imperial  palace  in  Constantinople,  and  therefore  is 
also  called  the  second  Trullan,  often  merely  the  Trullan  /car 
efo^V.  The  name  Quinisexta,  however,  or  TrevOefcrr),  it  re 
ceived  for  the  reason  that  it  was  intended  to  be  a  completion 
of  the  fifth  and  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synods.  Both  of  these 
had  drawn  up  only  dogmatic  decrees,  and  had  published  no 
disciplinary  canons ;  and  therefore  these  must  now  be  added 
to  them,  and  the  complementary  Synod,  summoned  for  that 
purpose,  should  also  be  called  (Ecumenical,  and  should  be 
regarded  and  honoured  as  a  continuation  of  the  sixth.  Un 
doubtedly  it  was  for  this  reason  that  it  was  held  in  the  same 
locality  as  that  was.2  So  the  Greeks  intended,  and  so  they 
regard  it  to  this  day,  and  designate  the  canons  of  the  Quini 
sext  as  canons  of  the  sixth  Synod.  The  Latins,  on  the  other 
hand,  declared  from  the  beginning,  as  we  shall  see,  against 
the  Quinisext,  and  called  it,  in  derision,  erratica? 

p.  1437. )  Assemani  wonders  on  this  occasion,  that  Baronius  did  make  use  of 
the  revision  of  the  synodal  Acts  of  Justinian  u.,  and  the  deception  which 
might  have  been  practised  at  that  time,  in  favour  of  his  hypothesis  in  regard 
to  Honorius  (see  above,  p.  202), — an  hypothesis  which  Assemani  does  not 
accept.  But  a  falsification  of  the  Acts  in  the  year  686  was  for  Baronius  too 
late,  since  the  genuine  Acts  had  already  gone  to  Rome. 

1  Quinisexta  Synodus,  or  Quinisextum  Concilium. 

2  This  is  contested  by  Assemani  (Biblioth.  jur.  Orient,  t.  v.  p.  85),  since  he 
belongs  to  those  who  remove  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  into  the  Church  of 
S.  Sophia.     See  above,  p.  43. 

3  Baronius,  ad  ann.   692,  7.     Only  by  mistake  the  Latins  also  sometimes 
ascribed  the  canons  of  this  Synod  to  the  sixth   (Ecumenical  Council.     The 


222  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Three  views  have  prevailed  as  to  the  time  of  the  holding 
of  this  Synod.  The  Patriarch  Tarasius  of  Constantinople 
asserted,  at  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod  at  Nicsea :  "  Four 
or  five  years  after  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  had  the  same 
bishops,  in  a  new  assembly  under  Justinian  IL,  published  the 
(Trullan)  canons  mentioned." l  Following  him,  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Synod  repeated  the  same  assertion.2  Supporting 
themselves  on  this,  several  decided  to  ascribe  the  Quinisext 
to  the  year  686.  This  assumption  is  disproved,  however,  by 
the  chronological  date  given  by  the  Synod  itself  in  its  third 
canon,  where  it  speaks  of  the  15th  of  January  of  the  past 
4th  Indiction,  or  the  year  of  the  world  6109.  The 
Indict,  iv.  in  no  way  agrees  with  A.D.  686  ;  it  must  therefore 
be  read  Indictio  xiv.  Besides,  it  is  quite  incorrect  to  assert 
that  the  same  bishops  were  present  at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod  and  at  the  Quinisext.  A  comparison  of  the  sub 
scriptions  in  the  synodal  Acts  of  the  two  assemblies  shows 
this  at  the  first  glance. 

That  the  number  of  the  year,  6109,  is  incorrect,  and 
the  number  90  has  dropped  out,  so  that  6199  must  have 
been  read,  the  advocates  of  the  second  and  third  view  are 
agreed.  But  the  former  reckon  the  6199  years  after  the 
Constantinopolitan  era,  according  to  which  they  coincide 
with  A.D.  691;  whilst,  according  to  the  third  hypothesis, 
we  should  refer  to  the  Alexandrian  era,  and  therefore  to 
A.D.  706.  The  latter  is  certainly  incorrect,  for  after  the 
close  of  the  Trullan  Synod,  the  Emperor  sent  its  Acts,  as  we 
shall  see  (at  the  end  of  this  section),  for  confirmation  to  Pope 
Sergius ;  but  he  had  died  in  the  year  701.  So,  too,  the 
Patriarch  Paul  of  Constantinople,  who  presided  over  the 
Trullan  Council,  died  in  693.  There  remains,  then,  only  the 
second  theory.  The  year  6199  of  the  Constantinopolitan  era 
coincides,  as  we  have  said,  with  the  year  691  after  Christ, 
and  the  4th  Indiction  ran  from  September  1,  690,  to 

Latin  Canons  which,  in  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1711  sq.,  are  ascribed  in  the 
margin  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  belong  to  Theodulph  of  Orleans. 
See  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  916. 

1  At  the  fourth  session,  in  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  191 ;  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  42. 

2  At  the  sixth  session,  in  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  335  ;  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  219. 


THE  QUINISEXT  OR  TRULLAN   SYNOD,  A.D.   G92.  223 

August  31,  691.  If,  then,  our  Synod,  in  the  3rd  canon, 
speaks  of  the  15th  of  January  in  the  past  Indiction  iv.,  it 
means  January,  691  ;  but  it  belongs  itself,  accordingly,  to  the 
5th  Indiction,  i.e.  it  was  opened  after  September  1,  691, 
and  before  September  1,  692.1 

What  we  possess  of  the  Acts  of  this  Synod  consists  in 
its  address  to  the  Emperor,  and  in  102  canons  with  the  sub 
scription  of  the  members.2  In  the  former  it  is  said  :  The  evil 
enemy  always  persecutes  the  Church,  but  God  ever  sends  her 
protectors,  and  so  the  present  Emperor,  who  wishes  to  free  his 
people  from  sin  and  destruction.  As  the  two  last  (Ecumenical 
Synods,  under  Justinian  i.  and  Constantine  Pogonatus,  gave 
no  disciplinary  ordinances,  the  moral  life  has  in  many  ways 
fallen  into  decay.  Therefore  the  Emperor  has  convoked 
"  this  holy  and  God-chosen  (Ecumenical  Synod  "  in  order  to 
bring  the  Christian  life  again  into  order,  and  to  root  out  the 
remains  of  Jewish  and  heathen  perverseness.  At  the  close, 
the  bishops  called  out  to  the  Emperor  the  words  which  for 
merly  the  second  (Ecumenical  Synod  addressed  to  Theodosius : 
"  As  thou  by  the  letter  of  convocation  (to  this  Synod)  hast 
honoured  the  Church,  so  mayest  thou  also  seal  up  that  which 
has  been  decreed."  3 

(1)  At  the  head  of  their  canons — as  they  must  begin 
with  God — the  Synod  placed  the  declaration  of  their  ad- 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  692,  2-7  ;  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  p.  60  sqq. 

2  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.   930-1006  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  pp.  1651-1712. 
To  these  synodal  Acts  is  prefixed  a  Greek  and  Latin  Admonitio  ad  Lectorem, 
composed  by  the  editors  of  the  Roman  Collection  of  Councils  (they  say,  in  the 
index  to  the  third  volume,  that  it  is  latine  et  grsece  nunc  primum  composita), 
which  differs  from  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Quinisext.    An  extensive  treatise 
on  the  Trullan  Synod  and  its  canons  was  given  by  Joseph  Simon  Assemani  in 
his  Bibliotheca  juris  orientalis,  Romse  1786,  t.  v.  pp.  55-348,  and  t.  i.  pp.  120, 
408  sqq.;  and  also  the  treatise,  De  hymno  Trisagio  (t.v.),  partially  touches  on 
the  81st  canon  of  our  Synod.     A  hundred  years  earlier,  Christian  Lupus  (pro 
fessor  at   Louvain)   explained   the  Trullan   canons  in  his   well-known  work, 
Synodorum  generalium,  etc.,  decreta  et  canones.     The  older  Greek  commentaries 
by  Theodore  Balsamon,   Zonaras,  and  Aristenus,  of  the  twelfth  century,  are 
found  in  Beveridge,  Pandedaz  canonum  sine  synodicon,  Oxon.  1672,  t.  i.  pp. 
151-283,  and  Beveridge's  own  notes  upon  them,  ibid.  t.  ii.  pt.  ii.  p.  126  sqq. 
It  is  yet  to  be  remarked  that  some  MSS.,  e.g.  that  of  Baronius,  counted  103 
canons,  instead  of  102,  by  dividing  one  of  them  into  two. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  930  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1651  sqq.     Cf.  vol.  ii.  p.  369. 


224  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

hesion  to  the  apostolic  creed,  and  to  the  declarations  of  faith 
and  anathematisms  of  the  six  (Ecumenical  Councils.  Among 
other  things,  the  anathema  pronounced  by  the  sixth  Synod 
on  Pope  Honorius  is  renewed.  Moreover,  with  genuine  Greek 
flattery,  it  is  said  that  the  decree  of  the  faith  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod  has  so  much  more  force  as  the  Emperor 
has  subscribed  it. — After  this  follow  the  proper  disciplinary 
ordinances. 

(2)  The   85   apostolic   canons   shall  remain  in  force  and 
be  confirmed,  as  having  been  already  received  by  the  Fathers,1 
with   the  exception,  however,  of  the   apostolic  constitutions, 
although  these  are  named  in  the  apostolic  canons.      But  they 
were  early  corrupted  by   the  heretics.      Further,  there   shall 
remain  in  force  the  canons  of  the  Synods  of  Nicsea,  Ancyra, 
Neo-Csesarea,  Gangra,  Antioch,  Laodicea,  of  the  second,  third," 
and  fourth    (Ecumenical   Synods,  of  the   Synods  of  Sardica, 
Carthage,   Constantinople  under  Nectarius  (A.D.  394),  Alex 
andria  under  Theophilus.      So  also  the  canons  of  Dionysius 
the  Great  of  Alexandria,  of  Peter  of  Alexandria,  of  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus  of  Neo-Csesarea,  of  Athanasius,  Basil,  Gregory 
of  Nyssa,  Gregory  of  ISTazianzus,  of  Amphilochius  of  Iconium, 
Timothy  of  Alexandria,  and  the  canon  of  Cyprian  and  his 
Synod,  which  had  validity  only  in  Africa.2 

(3)  In  regard  to  the  purity  and  continence  of  the  clergy, 
the  Eomans  have  a  more   stringent,  the  Constantinopolitans 
a   milder  canon.     These  must    be  mingled.      Thus :  (a)  All 
clerics  married  a  second  time,  who  do  not  reform  before  the 
15th   of  January  of    the  expired   4th    Indiction,   or  of  the 
year    6109    (more    correctly    6199,   as    we    saw),  shall    be 
canonically   deposed,     (b)  Those,   however,   who,   before   the 

1  This  canon  already  contains  a  polemic  against  Rome,  since  that  recog 
nised  only  the  first  50  apostolic  canons.     Of.  vol.  i.  ad  Jin. 

2  This  general  statement  does  not  enable  us  to  know  what  special  ordinance 
of  an  African  Synod  under  Cyprian  is  meant.     It  is  supposed  that  the  Greeks 
had  here,  out  of  opposition  to  Rome,  received  that  statement  of  Cyprian  which 
he  made  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  Synod  of  Carthage,  A.D.  257  :  "Let  no 
one  oppose  the  episcopus  episcoporum.     Baronius  (ad  ann.  692,  16),  Assemani 
(Bibioth.  jur.  Orient,  t.   i.  p.  414),  and  others,  again,  think  that  the  Greeks, 
from  hatred  against  Rome,  had  approved  the  African  canon  of  the  invalidity 
of  every  heretical  baptism.     But  in  that  case  they  would  have  contradicted 
themselves.     Cf.  below,  their  canon  95. 


THE  QUINISEXT   OR  TRULLAN  SYNOD,  A.D.   692.  225 

publication  of  our  decree,  have  given  up  that  unlawful 
union,  done  penance,  and  learnt  continence,  or  their  wives 
of  the  second  marriage  have  died,  shall,  if  priests  or  deacons, 
be  removed  from  the  divine  service,  but  may,  when  for  some 
time  they  have  done  penance,  maintain  the  place  belonging 
to  their  rank  in  the  Church,  and  must  be  contented  with 
this  place  of  honour,  (c)  Priests,  deacons,  and  sub-deacons, 
who  marry  only  once,  but  a  widow,  or  marry  after  ordination, 
shall,  after  having  done  penance  for  a  time,  be  restored  to 
their  office,  but  may  obtain  no  higher  degree,  (d)  In  future, 
however,  in  accordance  with  the  ancient  canons,  no  one  may 
become  a  bishop,  or  a  cleric  in  general,  who  has  married 
twice  after  his  baptism,  or  has  had  a  concubine,  or  married 
a  widow,  or  one  divorced,  or  a  prostitute,  or  a  female  slave, 
or  an  actress  (see  Can.  Apost.  17  and  18). 

(4)  A   cleric  who   has   had    intercourse   with    a   woman 
dedicated  to  God  is  deposed.     A  layman  who  has  done  so 
is  excommunicated. 

(5)  No  cleric  may  have  in  his  house  any  woman  except 
those   allowed  in  the   ancient  canons   (Niccen,  c.    3).       The 
eunuchs  also  are  bound  by  this  rule. 

(6)  The  ordinance  of  the  apostolic   canons  (No.  27),  in 
consequence  of  its  being  often  disobeyed,  is  renewed,  namely, 
that  only  lectors  and  cantors,  but  not  sub-deacons,  may  marry 
after  receiving  the  dedication  to  their  office. 

(7)  A   deacon,   whatever  his   office   may  be,  must  never 
have  his  seat  before  the  priests,  unless  he  is  acting  (e.g.,  at 
Synods)  as  representative  of  his  patriarch  or  metropolitan ; 
for  then  he  takes  his  seat  (cf.  Niccen,  c.  18). 

(8)  At  least  once  a  year  a  Synod  shall  be  held  in  each 
province,  between  Easter  and  the  month  of  October. 

(9)  No  cleric  may  be  an  innkeeper. 

(10)  No  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  may  take  interest,  on 
penalty  of  deposition  if  he  does  not  desist  (cf.  vol.  i.  pp.  145, 
190,  424,  476). 

(11)  No  Christian,  whether  layman  or  cleric,  may  eat  the 
unleavened  bread  of  the  Jews,  have  confidential  intercourse  with 
Jews,  receive  medicine  from  them,  or  bathe  with  them.     The 
cleric  who  does  so  is  deposed,  the  layman  excommunicated. 

v.— 15 


226  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(12)  In  Africa,  Libya,  and  elsewhere,  it  comes  to  pass 
that  bishops,  even  after  their  ordination,  still  live  with  their 
wives.      This  gives  offence,  and  is  henceforth  forbidden  under 
penalty  of  deposition. 

(13)  In  the  Eoman  Church,  those  who  wish   to  receive 
the  diaconate   or    presbyterate     must    promise    to    have   no 
further  intercourse  with  their  wives.      We,  however,  in  ac 
cordance  with   the   apostolic   canons  (No.  6),  allow  them  to 
continue  in   matrimony.      If  anyone   seeks  to   dissolve  such 
marriages,  he  shall   be  deposed ;  and  the  cleric  who,  under 
pretence  of  religion,  sends  away  his  wife,  shall  be  excommuni 
cated.       If  he  persists  in  this,  he  is  to  be  deposed.       But 
sub-deacons,   deacons,   and   priests,   at  the  time  when    they 
have   to   celebrate   divine   service,  must   refrain   from    their 
wives,  since  it  has  already  been  ordained  by  the   Synod  of 
Carthage,  that  he  who  ministers  in  sacred  things  must  be  pure.1 

(14)  In  accordance  with   the  ancient  laws,  no  one  shall 
be  ordained  priest  before  thirty  years,  or  deacon  before  twenty- 
five.     A  deaconess  must  be  forty  years  old.2 

(15)  A    sub-deacon    must    be    twenty     years    old.       If 
anyone   is   ordained   too    early   to  any   degree,   he    shall   be 
deposed.3 

(16)  The   Synod  of  Neo-Csesarea  ordained  (c.    15)  that 
only  seven  deacons  should  be  appointed  to  one  city,  however 
large  it  may  be,  because  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  men 
tion  is  made  only  of  so   many.      But  the   seven  deacons  of 
the   Acts  did   not  serve   at  the  mysteries,  but  only  in   the 
administration  of  caring  for  the  poor.4 

1  The  Synods  of  Carthage  of  the  year  390,  can.  2,  and  401,  can.  4  (vol.  ii. 
sees.  106,  113),  require,  however,  not  temporary,  but  permanent  continence  in 
priests,  etc.     The  inconsistency  of  the  Greeks  is  further  to  be  noticed.     Who 
ever  becomes  a  priest  as  a  married  man  must  retain  his  wife  ;  but  if  he  be 
comes  a  bishop  she  must  go  into  a  monastery  (c.   48).      Cf.    how  Baronius 
(ad  ann.  692,  18-27)  opposes  this  canon.     On  this  canon  and  the  marriage  of 
the  Greek  clergy,  Assemani  treats  copiously,  Lc.  t.  v.  p.  133  sqq.,  and  t.  i, 
p.  418  sqq. 

2  Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  109  sqq. 

3  On   the  sub-diaconate    among  the   Greeks,    cf.    Assemani,    I.e.    t.    v.    p. 
122  sqq. 

4  That  this  opinion  is  incorrect  is  shown  by  Baronius,  ad  ann.  692,  28, 
Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  147  sqq. 


THE   QUINISEXT   OR   TRULLAN   SYNOD,   A.D.   692.  227 

(17)  No    cleric    may,   without    written    consent    of    his 
bishop,  go    over    to   another    church,  under  penalty  of    de 
position  for  him  and  for  the  bishop  who  receives  him. 

(18)  If  clerics  have  gone  abroad  on  account  of  the  in 
cursions  of  the  barbarians,  they  must,  when  peace  is  restored, 
come  back  again. 

(19)  The  higher  functionaries  of  the  Church  must  daily, 
but  especially   on  Sunday,  instruct  the  people,  and  explain 
the   Scriptures  according   to   the   exposition  of  the  Fathers 
(cf.  Can.  Apost.  58). 

(20)  A  bishop  may  not  teach  in  a  strange  city. 

(21)  Those  who  by  offences  have  been  degraded  to  the 
status  laicalis,  if  they  voluntarily  forsake  their  sin,  may  cut 
their  hair  after  the  manner  of  clerics.      In  the  other  case, 
they  must  wear  their  hair  like  laymen. 

(22)  If  anyone  has  obtained  ordination   for  money,   he 
must  be  deposed,  together  with  him  who  ordained  him. 

(23)  No  cleric  may  demand  money  for  the  administering 
of  holy  communion  (rrj?  a^pavrov  Koiv<*)via<$\  under  penalty 
of  deposition  as  a  follower  of  Simon.1 

(24)  No  cleric  or  monk  may  take  part  in  horse-races  or 
theatres.     If  he  is  at  a  marriage,  he  must  depart  when  the 
games  take  place. 

(25)  Eenewalof  canon  7  of  Chalcedon  :  see  vol.  iii.  p.  392. 

(26)  A  priest  who,  through  ignorance,  has  contracted  an 
irregular  marriage,  retains  (c.  3)  his  place  of  honour,  but  may 
discharge    no    spiritual    functions.      The    unlawful    marriage 
must,  of  course,  be  dissolved. 

(27)  Both  at  home  and  when  travelling,  the  cleric  must  wear 
his  clerical  dress,  under  penalty  of  excommunication  for  a  week. 

(28)  In  some  churches  it  is  the  custom  for  the  faithful  to 
bring  grapes  to  the  altar,  and  the  priests  unite  them  with  the 
unbloody  sacrifice  and  administer  them  at  the  same  time  with 
that.      This  is   no   longer   allowed,  but  the  grapes  must  be 
specially  blessed  and  distributed.      Cf.  Can.  Apost.  4  ;  vol.  ii. 
p.  399,  c.  23. 


1  By  the  Koivuvta  axpdvro^  the  old  Greek  commentators,  Balsamon  and 
Zonaras,  already  understood  the  holy  communion.  See  Beveridge,  Synodicon, 
t.  i.  p.  182. 


228  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(29)  The  African  practice  of  receiving  the  eucharist,  on 
Maundy   Thursday,   after  a  meal,   is  disapproved  (see  vol.  ii. 
p.  399,  c.  28).      Thereby   injustice  is   done  to  the  whole  of 
Lent. 

(30)  If  priests,  in  the  lands  of  barbarians,  think  that  they 
should  transgress  the  apostolic  canon  (No.  6),  which  forbids 
the  sending  away  of  a  wife  under  the  pretext  of  religion,  and 
abstain  from   their  wives  with   their  consent,  we  will  allow 
this  to  them,  but  only  to  them,  in  regard  to  their  anxiety 
and  their  strange  manners ; l  but  in  that  case  they  may  not 
live  again  with  their  wives. 

(31)  Divine  service  may  be  held  in  private  oratories,  or 
baptisms  celebrated,  but  only  with  the  consent  of  the  bishop. 

(32)  The   use   of   the   Armenians,  to  employ  only  wine 
without  water  at  the  holy  sacrifice,  is  forbidden  under  penalty 
of  deposition.2 

(33)  So    also    the    other    custom  of  the  Armenians,  to 
ordain  only  descendants  of  the  families  of  priests  as  clerics, 
and  to  appoint  untonsured  men  as  cantors  and  lectors.3 

(34)  Eenewal  of  canon  18  of  Chalcedon  (see  vol.iii.p.404). 

(35)  No  metropolitan,  when  a  bishop  of  his  province  has 
died,  may  appropriate  anything  from  his  private  property,  or 
from  the  property  of  the  church  vacated,  but  a  cleric  belong 
ing   to   the    Church    must    administer   everything   until   the 
election  of  a  new  bishop.     Cf.  c.  22  of  Chalcedon. 

(36)  Eenewing   the   decrees   of    the    second   and   fourth 
(Ecumenical  Synods,  we  decide  that  the  see  of  Constantinople 
shall  enjoy  the  same  rights  (jwv  taetv  airdXaveiv  Trpeo-peiwv) 
as  that  of  Old  Kome,  shall  be  highly  regarded  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  as  that  is,  and  shall  be  second  after  it.     After  Con 
stantinople  comes  the  see  of  Alexandria,  then  Antioch,  and 
next  that  of  Jerusalem.      Cf .  vol.  ii.  p.   3  5  7  ff. ;  vol.  iii.  p. 
411  ff '. ;  and  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  426  sqq. 

(37)  It  has  happened  that  bishops  have  been  unable  to 
enter  upon  the  sees  for  which  they  were  consecrated,  because 

1  An  attack  on  the  Western  practice.     By  "barbarians"  the  Westerns  are 
meant. 

2  Cf.  Assemani.  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  201  sqq.;  and  above,  p.  217,  n.  2. 

3  Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  287. 


THE   QUINISEXT  OR  TRULLAN   SYNOD,  A.D.   692.  229 

of  the  incursions  of  the  barbarians  (especially  of  the 
Saracens).  This  shall  not  be  a  disadvantage  to  them  (cf. 
c.  37  Apost.  vol.  i.  and  c.  18  of  Antioch,  vol.  ii.  p.  71);  but 
their  rank  remains  to  them,  and  their  right  to  confer  orders. 
(Beginning  of  bishops  in  partibus  infideHum.) 

(38)  If   a   city   is    renewed    by   imperial    command,  its 
ecclesiastical  position  is  regulated,  according  to  ancient  law, 
by  its  new  civil  rights  (c.  17  of  Chalcedon,  vol.  iii.  p.  402  ff.). 

(39)  The  archbishop  of  Cyprus,   in  consequence  of  the 
incursions  of  the  barbarians,  has  gone  abroad  into  the  pro 
vince  of  the  Hellespont,  into  the  city  of  New-Justinianopolis. 
He  shall  retain  the  rights  there  which  the  Synod  of  Ephesus 
conceded  to  the  archbishop  of  Cyprus  (vol.  iii.  p.  71)  (that  he 
should  not  be  subject  to  the  patriarch  of  Antioch).     He  shall 
have  the  right  of  Constantinople  (TO  ^Uaiov  TT}?  Kcovo-ravTi- 
vovTroXecos),    shall    take    precedence    of    all    bishops    of    the 
province  of  the  Hellespont,  and  also  of  those  of  Cyzicus,  and 
shall  be  consecrated  by  his  own  bishops.1 

(40)  If  anyone  will  enter  the  monastic  life,  he  must  be 
at  least  ten  years  old. 

(41)  If  anyone  wishes  to  inhabit  a  cell  of  his  own,  he 
must  have  previously  lived  three  years  in  a  monastery.     If 
he  has  then  taken  possession  of  the  cell,  he  may  not  after 
wards  leave  it. 

(42)  As  there  are  hermits  who  frequent  the  streets  in 
black  clothes  and  with  long  hair,  and  have  intercourse  with 
men  of  the  world,  it  is  ordained  that  they  must  go  into  a 
monastery  with  short  hair   and  in  the  habit  of  their  order. 
If  they  will  not  do  so,  they  must  be  driven  out  of  the  cities.2 

1  Hitherto  the  bishop  of  Cyzicus  was  metropolitan  of  the  province  of  the 
Hellespont.     Now  he  too  is  to  be  subject  to  the  bishop  of  New-Justinianopolis. 
What,  however,  is  meant  by  rb  Slxaiov  r^s  ~Kwv(TTavTii>ovTro\eci}s  1     It  was  im 
possible  that  the  Synod  should  place  the  bishop  of  Justinianopolis  in  equal 
dignity  with  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople.     But  they  probably  meant  to 
say:  "The  rights  which  the  bishop  of  Constantinople  has  hitherto  exercised 
over  the  province  of  the  Hellespont,  as  chief  metropolitan,  fall  now  to  the 
bishop  of  New-Justinianopolis."     Or  perhaps  we  should  read,  instead  of  Kwi/- 
(TTavTi.vovTr6\€(i}s,  KdovcrTavTivfuv  TroXews,  as  the  MS.  Amerbarchii  has  it,  and  trans 
late  :   "  The  same  rights  which  Constantia  (the  metropolis  of  Cyprus)  possessed, 
New-Justinianopolis  shall  henceforth  have."     The  latter  is  the  more  probable. 

2  Cf.  the  commentary  of  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  153  sqq. 


230  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(43)  Anyone  may  become  a  monk,  however  he  may  have 
hitherto  lived. 

(44)  A  monk  who  is  guilty  of  unchastity,  or  takes  a  wife, 
is  punished  as  unchaste. 

(45)  It  comes  to  pass  that  women  who  wish  to  go  into  a 
convent  are  led  to  the  altar  covered  with  gold  and  precious 
stones,  in  order  to  strip  off  all  their  splendour  and  exchange 
it  for  the  black  robe.      This  must  in  future  no  longer  happen, 
so  that  it  may  not  appear  that  they  only  unwillingly  forsake 
the  vanities  of  the  world. 

(46)  Nuns  may  not  leave  the  convent  without  the  per 
mission    and    benediction    of   the    superior,  and    then    only 
in  company  with    other    women    of    the    convent.      Other 
wise     they    may    not     sleep    outside.      So    likewise    monks 
may  not  go  out  without  the  benediction  of  the  superior. 

(47)  No  woman   may  sleep  in  a  men's  monastery,  and 
conversely,  under  penalty  of  excommunication. 

(48)  If  anyone  is  consecrated  bishop,  his  wife  must  go 
into  a  convent  at  a  considerable  distance.      But  the  bishop 
must  provide  for  her.      If  she  is  worthy,  she  may  become  a 
deaconess. 

(49)  Monasteries  which  have  once  been  consecrated  with 
the  permission  of  the  bishop,  may  not  be  turned  into  secular 
dwellings.     Moreover,  what  has  once  belonged  to  them,  may 
never  be  given  to  seculars. 

(50)  To  clerics  and  laymen,  playing  at  dice  is  forbidden; 
under  penalty  of  deposition  to  the  former,  of  excommunication 
to  the  others. 

(51)  This  holy  and  (Ecumenical  Synod  forbids  actors  and 
their  plays,  the  exhibitions  of  hunts,1  and  theatrical  dances. 
Whoever  gives  himself  to  these  things,  if  a  cleric,  shall  be 
deposed,  if  a  layman,  excommunicated.2 

(52)  On  all  days  in  Lent,  except  Saturdays,  Sundays,  and 
the  Annunciation  of  the  Virgin,  there  is  held  only  a  liturgia 
prcesanctificatorum. 

1  The  old  Greek  commentators,  Balsamon  and  Zonaras,  understand  by  this 
the  fights  of  animals.     Of.  Beveridge,  I.e.  p.  218. 

2  Canon  24,  which  treats  of  a  similar  subject,  is  more  mild.     Naturally  so, 
as  there  it  is  of  spectators,  here  of  actors,  dancers,  fighters  of  animals,  that 
mention  is  made. 


THE   QUINISEXT   OR   TRULLAN   SYNOD,   A.D.   692.  231 

(53)  Those  who  are  sponsors  to  children  may  not  marry 
their  mother.     The  spiritual  relationship  is  higher  than  the 
bodily.1 

(54)  Incestuous  marriages  are  forbidden,  under  penalty 
of   excommunication  for  seven  years,  and   dissolution  of  the 
marriage.2 

(55)  In  Eome  they  fast  every  Saturday  in  Lent.      This  is 
contrary  to  the   66th  apostolical  canon,  and  may  no  longer 
be  done.     If  anyone  does  so,  he  will,  if  cleric,  be  deposed,  if 
layman,  excommunicated. 

(56)  In  Armenia  and  elsewhere,  on  Sundays  in  Lent,  they 
eat  eggs  and  cheese.      But  these  kinds  of  food  come  also  from 
animals,  and  ought  not  to  be  partaken  of  in  times  of  fasting, 
on  penalty  of  deposition  for  clerics,  of  excommunication  for 
laymen.      In   the  whole    Church   one   kind   of  fasting   must 
prevail.3 

(57)  Honey  and  milk  may  not  be  offered  on   the  altar. 
Cf.  Can.  3  Apost.  vol.  i.  ad  fin. 

(58)  If  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  is  present,  no  layman 
may  administer  holy  mysteries  (communion)  to  himself,  under 
penalty  of  excommunication  for  a  week. 

(59)  Baptism   is  not  allowed  in  private   oratories.      Cf. 
above,  canon  31. 

(60)  Those  who  represent  themselves  as  demoniacs  should 
be  subjected  to   the  same  pains   (macerations  and  the  like) 
which  are  imposed  upon  those  who  are  really  demoniacal,  in 
order  to  deliver  them. 

(61)  If    anyone    consults    a    soothsayer    or    so  -  called 
hecatontarch,4  in  order  to  find  out  the  future,  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  penalty  appointed  for  six  years  by  the  Fathers 
of  Ancyra  (canon   24   of  Ancyra,  vol.  i.  p.   221).      So  also 
those  who  take  about  bears  and  similar  animals  to  the  injury 

1  Cf.  the  commentary  of  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  p.  165  sqq. 

2  Compare    the    copious   commentary    on    the    canon    by    Assemani,    I.e. 
t.  v.  p.  172. 

3  Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  431,  and  t.  v.  p.  242  sqq. 

4  According    to    Balsamoii    (in    Beveridge,    I.e.    p.    228),    old   people   who 
had    the    reputation    of   special    knowledge    [identified    by  Gothofred    with 
the    "  centenarii"    of    the    Theodosian    code.       See    Dictionary    of    Christ. 
Antiq.  s.v.']. 


232  HISTORY  OF  THE  COUNCILS. 

of  the  simple,1  who  show  men's  destiny,  cast  their  nativity, 
drive  away  the  clouds,  give  out  amulets,  etc. 

(62)  The  remains  of  heathen  superstition  of  all  kinds  are 
forbidden,  the  festivals  of  the  Kalendar,  the  Bota  (in  honour 
of  Pan),  the  Brumalia  (in  honour  of  Bacchus),  the  assemblies 
on  the  1st  of  March,  public  dances  of  women,  clothing  of  men 
like  women,  and  inversely,  putting  on  comic,  satyric,  or  tragic 
masks,  the  invocation  of  Bacchus  at  the  winepress,  etc.2 

(63)  False    histories    of    martyrs,  invented  in  order  to 
insult  the  martyrs  and  to  mislead  the  people  to  unbelief,  shall 
be  burnt. 

(64)  No  layman  may  publicly,  in  religious  services,  come 
forward  as  speaker  or  teacher,  under  penalty  of  excommuni 
cation  for  forty  days. 

(65)  It  is  forbidden,  on  the  new  moons,  to  light  fires 
before  the  dwellings  or  workshops,  and  leap  upon  them  (as  the 
impious  Manasseh  did,  2  Kings  xxi.). 

(66)  The  whole  week  after  Easter,  until  the  next  Sunday, 
must  be  kept  as  an   ecclesiastical  festival.     All  horse-races 
and  public  spectacles  in  this  week  are  forbidden. 

(67)  The  eating  of  the  blood  of  animals  is  forbidden  in 
Holy  Scripture.     A  cleric  who  partakes  of  blood  is  to   be 
punished  by  deposition,  a  layman  with  excommunication.3 

(68)  No  one  may  annul  or  cut  up  a  book  of  the  Old  or 
New  Testament,  or  of  the  holy  Fathers,  or  sell  it  to  others 
(e.g.  vendors  of  salves),  who  annul  it  and  sell  it,  when  it  has 
become  useless  through  moths,  etc.,  on  penalty  of  excommuni 
cation  for  a  year.      The  like  punishment  is  pronounced  on 
anyone  who  buys  such  a  book  in  order  to  annul  it. 

(69)  No  layman  must  enter  the  place  where  the  altar 
stands,  except,  according  to  ancient  tradition,  the  Emperor 
when  he  brings  an  offering.4 

1  They  sold  their  hair  as  medicine  or  for  an  amulet.     Cf.  Balsamon  and 
Zonaras  in  Beveridge,  I.e.  p.  228. 

2  These  kinds  of  superstition  are  more  fully  discussed  in  Balsamon   and 
Zonaras,  I.e.  p.  230  sqq. 

3  The  Greeks  want  here,  in  their  pedantry,  to  make  a  temporary  prescrip 
tion  of  the  apostolic  time,  which  was  then  necessary  to  unite  Jewish  and  Gentile 
Christians,  of  perpetual  validity.     Cf.  Baron.  I.e.  ad  ann.  690,  30. 

4  Other  laymen,  besides  the  Emperor,  ventured  to  pass  the  barriers  which 


THE   QUINISEXT  OE  TRULLAN  SYNOD,  A.D.   692.  233 

(70)  Women  are  not  allowed  to  speak  during  divine  ser 
vice  (1  Cor.  xiv.  34f.). 

(71)  Those  who  receive  instruction  in  the  civil  laws  (the 
young  jurists)  may  not  allow  themselves  in  heathen  usages, 
nor  appear  at  the  theatre,  nor  wear  strange  clothes,  and  the 
like,  under  penalty  of  excommunication.1 

(72)  Marriages  between  the  orthodox  and  heretics  are 
forbidden,  under  penalty  of  excommunication,  and  must  be  dis 
solved.     It    is    otherwise    when    both    sides    were  formerly 
unbelieving    (heretical),    and    one    became    orthodox.     Here 
applies  1  Cor.  vii.  1 2  ff.2 

(73)  Eeverence  for  the  holy  cross  requires  that  the  form 
of  the  cross  shall  never  be  found  on  the  floor,  so  that  it  may 
never  be  trodden  under  foot. 

(74)  Love  feasts  (dydiraL)  within  the  churches  are  for 
bidden. 

(75)  Psalm  singing  shall  not  be  disorderly  or  noisy. 

(76)  In  the  neighbourhood  of  the  church  there  shall  be 
no  wine-shops,  cook-shops,  or  booths,  etc.,  allowed. 

(77)  No  man,  whether  layman  or  cleric,  may  bathe  with 
a  woman.      Cf.  c.  30  of  Laodicea,  vol.  ii.  p.  316. 

(78)  The  catechumens  of  the  first  class  must  learn  the 
Creed,  and  recite  it   on  Thursday  before  the  bishop  or  the 
priests.      Cf.  c.  46  of  Laodicea,  vol.  iii.  p.  319. 

(79)  It  is  in  some  places  the  custom  for  the  people,  on 
the  day  after  the  birth  of  Christ,  to  send  presents  of  food 

surrounded  the  altar,  in  order  to  make  an  offering,  and  so  to  reach  the  innermost 
part  of  the  sanctuary.  When,  however,  they  had  offered,  they  were  required 
immediately  to  withdraw,  and  were  not  allowed  to  remain  within  during  Mass. 
Only  in  Constantinople  had  Byzantine  complacency  conceded  to  the  Emperor 
his  usual  place  in  the  presbytery.  When  Theodosius  the  Great  came  to  Milan, 
he  wanted  it  to  be  so,  and  remained,  after  he  had  made  his  offering,  within  the 
rails.  Ambrose,  remarking  this,  asked  him  first,  what  he  wanted,  and  pointed 
out  to  him  the  difference  between  clergy  and  laity.  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccles.  v. 
18.  Sozbmen,  Hist.  Eccles.  vii.  25.  Cf.  the  notes  of  Lupus  on  this  passage,  and 
Baron,  ad  ann.  692,  317.  Our  canon  does  not  express  the  truth  exactly  with 
its  "  ancient  tradition." 

1  What  we  are  to  understand  by  the  forbidden  Kv\lffrpai,  Balsamon  and 
Zonaras  have  not  been  able  rightly  to  explain.     Beveridge,  I.e.  p.  240  sq. 

2  The  Synod  erroneously  here  places  marriage  with  a  heretic  on  the  same 
line  with  that  with  a  heathen.     Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  434  sqq. 


234  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

to  each  other  in  honour  of  the  childbed  (ra  \o%ela)  of  the 
blessed  Virgin  (childbed  presents).  As,  however,  the  child- 
bearing  of  the  blessed  Virgin  was  without  childbed  (i.e.  with 
out  bodily  weakness  and  pains),  because  miraculous,  we  forbid 
this  custom.1 

(80)  If  a  cleric  or  layman,  without  great  hindrance,  or 
without  being  of  necessity  on  a  journey,  fails  to  go  to  church 
for  three  successive  Sundays,  the  cleric  shall  be  deposed,  the 
layman  excommunicated.     Of.  canon   11   of  Sardica,  vol.  ii. 
p.  143. 

(81)  It  is  not  allowed  to  add  to  the  Trisagion  the  words : 
"  Who  was  crucified  for  us."     Of.  vol.  iii.  pp.  454,  457  ;  vol. 
iv.  pp.  26,  29  ;  and  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  v.  8,  p.  348  sqq. 

(82)  For  the  future,  in  pictures,  instead  of  the  Lamb,  the 
human  figure  of  Christ  shall  be  represented  (dvao-rr]\ovcr0cu).2 

(83)  The  Eucharist   may  not  be   given   to  a  dead  man. 
Of.  vol.  ii.  p.  397,  canon  4. 

(84)  If,  in  the  case  of  a  child,  it  is  not  certain  that  it  has 
been  baptized,  baptism  must  be  administered  to  it.     Cf.  vol.  ii. 
p.  424,  canon  7  ;  vol.  iii.  p.  3. 

(85)  The  emancipation  of  a  slave  should  take  place  before 
three  witnesses. 

(86)  If  anyone  keeps  a  brothel,  he  shall,  if  a  cleric,  be 
deposed  and  excommunicated,  if  a  layman,  excommunicated. 

(87)  If  anyone  forsakes  his  wife  and  marries  another,  he 
shall  (according  to  the  57th  canon  of  S.  Basil)  remain  for  a 
year  in  the  lowest,  two  years  in  the  second,  three  years  in  the 
third,  and  one  year  in  the  fourth  grade  of  penitence. 

(88)  No  cattle  may  be  driven  into  the  church  except  in 

1  By    ra   Xoxe?a    others  understand  the  so-called   after-birth,   secundinas. 
Cf.    the    detailed    commentary   on  this    canon    in    Assemani,    I.e.    t.    v.    p. 
193  sqq. 

2  In  the  oldest  times  Christians  set  up  only  the  figure  of  the  cross  without 
the  crucifixus.     From  the  fifth  century  the  figure  of  a  Lamb,  or  of  the  bust  of 
Christ,  was  introduced  on  the  cross,  sometimes  above,  sometimes  below,  some 
times  in  the  middle.     Next  to  this,  the  third  form  was  developed,  when  the 
whole  figure  of  Christ  was  attached  to  the  cross,  and  this  form  was  made  univer 
sally  prevalent  by  the  Trullan  Synod.     But  the  older  form  still  lasted  on  (the 
cross  with  the  Lamb  or  with  the  bust  of  Christ)  here  and  there.     Cf.  the 
author's   treatise  on  "  Antiquity  and  the  oldest  form  of  Crucifixes  "  in  his 
Beitrdge  zur  Kircliencjeschichtc.  Tiib.  1864,  Bd.  ii.  S.  265  f. 


THE   QUINISEXT   OR   TRULLAN   SYNOD,   A.D.   C92.  235 

the  greatest  need,  if  a  stranger  has  no  shelter  and  his  animals 
would  otherwise  perish. 

(89)  The  fast  in  Passion  Week  [Holy  Week]  must  last 
until  midnight  of  the  great  Saturday. 

(90)  From  Saturday  evening  to  Sunday  evening  no  one 
may  bend  the  knee.     Only  at  Compline  on  Sunday  may  the 
knees  again  be  bent. 

(91)  Whoever  gives  or  receives  medicine  for  destroying 
the  fruit  of   the  womb,  shall   be  punished   as  a   murderer. 
Of.  canon  21  of  Ancyra,  vol.  i.  p.  220. 

(92)  Whoever  ravishes  a  woman,  in  order  to  marry  her, 
or  assists  in  such  rape,  shall,  if  a  cleric,  be  deposed,  if    a 
layman,  excommunicated.      Cf.  c.   27   of  Chalcedon,  vol.  iii. 
p.  410. 

(93)  If  a  wife  marries  before  she  has   sure  intelligence 
of  the  death  of  her  husband,  who  has  disappeared,  or  gone  off 
on  travel,  or  is  absent  in  war,  she  is  guilty  of  adultery.     Yet 
is  her  act  excusable,  because  the  death   of  her  husband  had 
great  probability.     If  a  man,  deserted  by  his  wife,  has  married 
another  woman  without  her  knowing  of  his  first  marriage,  she 
must  give  way,  if  the   first  wife  returns ;  and  she  has  com 
mitted  fornication,  but  in  ignorance.      She  may  marry  again, 
but  it  is  better  if  she  does  not.      If  a  soldier  returns  after  a 
long  time,  and  his  wife  in  the  meantime  has  married  another, 
he  may,  if  he  will,  take  his  wife   back  to  him,  and  forgive 
her,  as  well  as  him  who  married  her. 

(94)  If  anyone  takes  a  heathen  oath,  he  is  to  be  ex 
communicated. 

(95)  In  reference  to  the  baptism  of  returning  heretics, 
the   7th  canon   of    the    second    (Ecumenical    Synod    is    re 
peated,   and  an   addition   made,   of   which   a  double  text  is 
presented.     The  ordinary  one,  as  it  stands  in  the  collections 
of  the  Councils,  gives  this  sense :  "  The  Manichaeans,  Valen- 
tinians,  Marcionites,  and  all  similar  heretics,  must  (without 
being  rebaptized)  present  a  certificate,  and  therein  anathemat 
ise  the  heresy,  together  with   Nestorius  and  Eutyches  and 
Dioscorus    and     Severus,    etc.,   and    then    receive    the    holy 
communion."      This  text  is  undoubtedly  false,    for   (a)    the 
baptism   of   the   Gnostics   was,  according  to   the   recognised 


236  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

ecclesiastical  principle,  invalid,  and  a  Gnostic  coming  into  the 
Church  was  required  to  be  baptized  anew ;  (&)  besides,  it 
would  have  us  first  to  require  of  a  Gnostic  an  anathema  on 
Nestorius,  Eutyches,  etc. — More  accurate,  therefore,  is  the 
text,  as  it  is  given  by  Beveridge,  and  as  Balsamon  had  it,  to 
the  effect  that :  "  In  the  same  way  (as  the  preceding)  are  the 
Manichseans,  Valentinians,  Marcionites,  and  similar  heretics 
to  be  treated  (i.e.  to  be  baptized  anew) ;  but  the  Nestorians 
must  (merely)  present  certificates,  and  anathematise  the 
heresy,  Nestorius,  Eutyches,"  etc.  Here  we  have  only  this 
mistake,  that  the  Nestorians  must  anathematise,  among 
others,  also  Eutyches,  which  they  would  certainly  have  done 
very  willingly.  At  the  best,  we  must  suppose  that  there  is 
a  gap  in  the  text,  and  that,  after  nal  TOU?  e/c  TMV  ofjuoiwv 
aipeaecov,  we  must  add,  "  the  later  heretics  must  present 
certificates,  and  anathematise  Nestorius,  Eutyches,"  etc. 

(96)  If    anyone    plaits    and    adorns     his     hair    in     an 
exquisite  manner,  in  order  to  mislead  others,  he  is  excom 
municated. 

(97)  Those    who    visit  their  wives  in  sacred   places   or 
otherwise,  dishonour  those    places,  and    shall,  if    clerics,  be 
deposed,  if  laymen,  excommunicated. 

(98)  If  anyone  marries  the  betrothed  of  another  during 
his  life,  he  must  be  punished  as  an  adulterer. 

(99)  In  Armenia  it  happens  that  some  within  the  altar 
(in  the  sanctuary)  boil  meat  and  give  pieces  of  it,  in  Jewish 
fashion,  to  the  priests.      The  priests  are  no  longer  allowed  to 
receive   this.     Outside   the   church,   however,   they   may   be 
contented  with  that  which  is  willingly  given  to  them.1 

(100)  Indecent  pictures  are  forbidden.     If  anyone  makes 
them  he  is  to  be  deposed. 

(101)  Whoever  wishes  to  receive  the  holy  communion 
must  come  with  his  hands  in  the  form  of  the  cross.      Some 
bring    golden    and    other   vessels,   in    order    to    receive   the 
Eucharist  (the  bread)  in  these,  instead  of  immediately  in  the 
hand,  as  if  a  lifeless  matter  were  better  than  the  image  of 
God  (the  human  body).     This  must  no  longer  take  place. 

(102)  Those  to  whom  the  power  of  binding  and  loosing 

1  Of.  Assemani,  I.e.  p.  294  sqq. 


THE  QUINISEXT  OR  TRULLAN  SYNOD,  A.D.   692.  237 

is  committed  must  endeavour  to  heal  individual  sinners  with 
prudence  and  with  regard  to  their  peculiarities. 

These  decrees  were  subscribed  first  by  the  Emperor,  and 
this  with  vermilion.  The  second  place  was  reserved  for  the 
Pope,  and  left  empty.  Then  followed  the  subscriptions  of 
Paul  of  Constantinople,  Peter  of  Alexandria,  Anastasius  of 
Jerusalem,  G  eorge  of  Antioch  (he  subscribed  here,  remarkably, 
after  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem),  in  the  whole  by  211 
bishops,  or  representatives  of  bishops  ;  only  Greeks  and 
Orientals,  also  Armenians.1  According  to  an  expression  of 
Anastasius,  no  other  Oriental  patriarch  besides  the  bishop  of 
Constantinople  appears  to  have  been  present  (see  below, 
p.  241);  but  in  his  biography  of  Pope  Sergius  (in  Mansi, 
t.  xii.  p.  3),  he  himself  mentions  that  the  decrees  of  this 
Synod  were  subscribed  by  three  patriarchs,  those  of  Alex- 
anilria,  Constantinople,  and  Antioch,  as  well  as  by  the  other 
bishops,  qui  eo  tempore  illic  convenerant.  Noticing  only  the 
expression  of  Anastasius  mentioned  above,  Christian  Lupus 
maintained  that  the  names  of  the  patriarchs  of  Alexandria 
and  the  rest  had  been  added  by  a  deception.  Assemani 
partly  agrees  with  him,  and  tried  to  show  (I.e.  t.  v.  pp.  30,  69) 
from  Greek  authorities  that,  at  the  time  of  our  Synod,  the 
patriarchal  sees  of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  were  not  occu 
pied,  on  account  of  the  incursions  of  the  Saracens.  On  the 
other  hand,  like  Pagi  (ad  ann.  692,  8),  he  rejects  the 
statement  of  Baronius,  that  Callinicus  had  then  taken  pos 
session  of  the  see  of  Constantinople.  Callinicus  followed 
after  Paul's  death,  A.D.  693. 

As  for  the  Pope,  so  also  room  was  left  for  the  subscrip 
tions  of  the  bishops  of  Thessalonica,  Sardinia,  Eavenna,  and 
Corinth.  Archbishop  Basil  of  Gortyna,  in  Crete,  added  to  his 
name  the  words  :  TOV  TOTTW  eTre^cov  Trdcnj?  TT}?  crvvoSov  rrjs 

He  had  signed  in  a  similar  manner, 


1  The  Libellus  Synodicus  speaks  of  240  bishops  ;  in  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  1018  ; 
Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1539.  Assemani  remarks  (t.  v.  p.  73)  correctly,  that,  by  a 
slip  of  the  pen  in  the  subscriptions  to  the  Synod,  two  archbishops  of  Caesarea 
are  mentioned,  Cyriacus  and  Stephen  ;  the  latter  must  have  been  archbishop 
of  Ephesus,  as  the  addition  TT)S  'Aaiav&v  tirapxlas  shows.  When,  however, 
Assemani  finds  two  bishops  of  Ancyra  in  the  subscriptions  to  the  Synod,  this 
rests  upon  a  misprint  in  the  edition  used  by  him. 


238  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

at  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod ;  and  we  have  already  there 
remarked  that  the  island  of  Crete  belonged  to  the  Eoman 
patriarchate,  and  that  Archbishop  Basil  seems  at  an  earlier 
period  to  have  received  a  delegation  on  the  part  of  the 
Roman  Synod  in  the  year  680.  Whether  this,  which  gave 
him  authority  as  representative  at  the  sixth  Synod,  still 
continued,  or  whether  he  only  continued  it  arbitrarily,  is 
uncertain.  To  the  gross  blunders  of  Balsamon,  however, 
belongs  his  assertion  (Beveridge,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  154)  that,  besides 
Basil  of  Gortyna,  other  legates  of  the  Pope,  the  bishops  of 
Thessalonica,  Corinth,  Eavenna,  and  Sardinia,  had  been  present 
at  the  Quinisext  and  had  subscribed  its  Acts.  He  transferred 
them  into  the  places  left  vacant,  marked  with  TOTTO?  TOV 
6e<rcra\ovlic'r]s)  etc.,  with  real  subscriptions. 

But  we  learn  from  the  Vita  Sergii  Papce  of  Anastasius 
(Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  3),  that  the  legati  of  Pope  Sergius  by  the 
Emperor  decepti  subscripserant. — Certainly  ;  but  by  legati  are 
here  to  be  understood  the  permanent  papal  representatives 
at  Constantinople,  and  not  those  specially  sent  to  the  Synod, 
and  the  instructed  legati  a  latere.1  It  was  natural  that  these 
representatives,  having  no  authority  for  that  purpose,  should 
not  be  personally  present  at  the  Synod.  The  fact,  however, 
that  they  allowed  themselves  to  be  deceived  by  the  Emperor, 
and  induced  to  subscribe,  suggests  to  me  the  following  theory. 
Pope  Nicolas  I.  writes,  in  his  eighth  letter  to  the  Emperor 
Michael  ill.  of  Constantinople :  "  His  (the  Emperor's)  pre 
decessors  had  for  a  long  time  been  sick  with  the  poison  of 
different  heresies,  and  had  either  made  those  who  wanted  to 
save  them  partakers  of  their  error,  as  at  the  time  of  Pope 
Conon,  or  had  persecuted  them."  2  Here  it  is  indicated  that 
the  Emperor  Justinian  n.  had  won  over  the  papal  representat 
ives  to  his  error.  As  no  such  occurrence  is  known  of  the 
brief  pontificate  of  Conon  (687),  and  Sergius  was  the  successor 
of  Conon,  that  which  happened  under  Sergius  might,  by  a 
slight  lapsus  memories,  quite  easily  be  transposed  to  the  time 
of  Conon,  and  certainly  then  with  right,  since  it  was  Conon 
who  had  sent  these  respresentatives  to  Constantinople.  If  it 

1  Cf,  Pagi,  ad  ann.  692,  9-12,  and  Assemani,  I.e.  v.  p.  72. 
-  Baron,  ad  ann.  686,  4  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  686,  7. 


JUDGMENT   OF   ROME   ON   THE   TRULLAN   CANONS.  239 

is  objected  to  this,  that  the  representatives  of  Sergius, 
when  they  subscribed  the  Trullan  canons,  agreed  to  no 
heresy,  it  must  be  considered  (a)  that  the  Emperor 
Justinian  n.  is  designated  as  entirely  orthodox  by  the 
ancients,  as,  e.g.,  by  Anastasius  in  his  Vitce  Pontificum, 
and  thus  the  error  to  which,  according  to  the  statement 
of  Pope  Nicolas  i.,  he  misguided  the  representatives,  can 
have  been  no  heresy  in  the  ordinary  sense ;  (b)  but 
also,  if  Nicolas  I.  spoke  of  heresy,  this  would  not  be  too 
strong,  for  the  Trullan  canons  (13,  60,  36,  55)  come  very 
near  to  heresy,  since  they  place  Constantinople  on  an 
equality  with  Rome,  thus  certainly  deny  the  primacy,  and 
threaten  several  points  of  the  Eoman  discipline  with 
anathema. 


SEC.  328.  Judgment  of  Borne  on  the  Trullan  Canons. 

The  Emperor  Justinian  n.  immediately  sent  the  Acts  of 
this  Synod  to  Rome,  with  the  request  that  Pope  Sergius  would 
subscribe  them  at  the  place  left  vacant  for  him.  But  Sergius 
refused  to  do  so,  because  qucedam  capitula  extra  ritum  ecclesi- 
asticum  fuerant  in  eo  (the  Council)  annexa}  did  not  accept  the 
copy  destined  for  him,  rejected  the  synodal  Acts  as  invalidi, 
and  would  rather  die  than  novitatum  erroribus  consentire.1 
In  order  to  constrain  him,  the  Emperor  sent  the  Protospathar 
(officer  of  the  imperial  bodyguard)  Zacharias  to  Rome,  in  order 
to  bring  the  Pope  to  Constantinople.  But  the  armies  of  the 
exarch  of  Ravenna  and  of  the  duchy  of  Pentapolis  took  the 
side  of  the  Pope ;  troops  of  soldiers  drew  to  Rome,  in  order 
to  prevent  his  abduction,  and  surrounded  the  Lateran.  Im 
mediately  on  hearing  of  the  arrival  of  the  soldiers,  the  Pro 
tospathar  had  fled  to  the  Pope  and  implored  his  help ;  now 
he  even  crept  into  his  bed ;  and  the  Pope  quieted  the  soldiers 
by  going  out  to  them  and  talking  with  them  in  a  friendly 
manner.  They  withdrew  again ;  the  Protospathar,  however, 
had  to  leave  the  city  in  shame.  Thus  relates  Anastasius, 
and  in  agreement  with  him,  more  briefly,  Bede  and  the  deacon 

1  All  that  must  have  appeared  offensive  to  the  Latins  in  the  Trullan  Synod 
is  put  together  by  Assemani,  I.e.  t.  i.  p.  413  sqqi 


240  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Paul.1  Justinian  either  could  not  or  would  not  take  revenge 
on  account  of  what  had  happened.  Soon  afterwards  he  was 
deposed  and  banished,  with  his  nose  slit  (hence  his  surname, 
'Pwor/w?™?),  When  he  came  again  to  the  throne  (705), 
Sergiuswas  already  dead  (f  701),  and  Justinian  now  sent  two 
metropolitans  to  John  vii.  (the  second  successor  of  Sergius), 
with  the  request  that  he  would  arrange  for  a  Council  of  the 
apostolic  Church  (i.e.  a  Eoman  Council),  in  order  to  efface 
those  of  the  Trullan  canons  which  were  unacceptable,  and 
confirm  the  others.  The  Pope,  a  timid  man,  would  neither 
strike  out  nor  confirm.  He  simply  sent  back  again  the  copy 
which  he  had  received.2 

Justinian  opened  new  negotiations  with  Pope  Constantine, 
and  invited  him  to  come  to  him  at  Mcomedia,  without  doubt 
on  account  of  the  Trullan  canons.  In  the  retinue  of  the 
Pope  was  also  the  Bornan  deacon  Gregory,  subsequently  his 
successor,  as  Gregory  IL,  and  Anastasius  relates  of  him,  that 
he  had  then  inquired  of  the  Emperor  de  quibusdam  capitulis 
(the  objectionable  canons  of  the  Trullan)  optima  responsione 
unamquamque  solvit  qucestionem.  That  he  and  Pope  Constan 
tine  succeeded  in  pacifying  the  Emperor,  without  his  quite 
forgiving  the  matter,  we  see  from  the  honours  and  favours 
with  which  he  loaded  the  Pope.3  The  process  by  which  they 
came  to  an  agreement  is  not  recorded,  but  undoubtedly 
Constantine  already  struck  that  fair  middle  path  which,  as 
we  know  certainly,  John  vm.  (872-882)  subsequently  ad 
hered  to,  in  the  declaration  that  "  he  accepted  all  those 
canons  which  did  not  contradict  the  true  faith,  good  morals, 
and  the  decrees  of  Eome."  That  John  viu.  had  drawn  up 
this  decree,  we  learn  from  the  Prcefatio  which  Anastasius 
prefixed  to  his  translation  of  Acts  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical 
Council.  He  there  addresses  Pope  John  vm.  thus :  "  Unde 
apostolatu  vestro  decernente  non  solum  illos  solos  quinquaginta 
canones  (the  first  fifty  apostolic,  which  Eome  had  hitherto 

1  Anastas.  Vita  Sergii,  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  3  ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  692,  34  sqq. 

2  Thus  relates  Anastasius,  Vita   Joannis  vn.,  in  Mansi,    t.    xii.  p.    163  ; 
Baron,  ad  ann.  692,  39,  40. 

3  We  learn  all  this  from  Anastasius,  Vita  Comtantini,  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  179  ; 
and  Vita  Gregorii  n.  ibid.  226, 


JUDGMENT   OF  ROME   ON  THE   TRULLAN   CANONS.          241 

recognised,  whilst  they  rejected  the  remaining  thirty-five) 
ecclesia  recipit,  sed  et  omnes  eorum  utpote  Spiritus  Sancti 
tubarum  (i.e.  the  Apostles),  quin  et  omnium  omnino  pro- 
babilium  patrum  et  sanctorum  conciliorum  regulas  et  insti- 
tutiones  admittit ;  illas  dumtaxat,  quce  nee  rectce  fidei  nee  probis 
moribus  obviant,  sed  nee  sedis  Romance  decretis  ad  modicum  quid 
resultant,  quin  potius  adversaries,  i.e.  hcereticos  potenter  im- 
pugnant.  Ergo  regulas,  quas  Greed  a  sexta  synodo  perhibent 
editas  (i.e.  the  Trullan,  which  the  Greeks  liked  to  call  canones 
sextce  synodi),  ita  in  hac  synodo  principalis  sedes  admittit,1  ut 
nullatenus  ex  his  illce  recipiantur,  quce  prioribus  canonibus  vel 
decretis  sanctorum  sedis  hujus  pontiftcum,  aut  certe  bonis  moribus 
inveniuntur  adverse  ;  quamvis  omnes  hactenus  ex  to  to  maneant 
apud  Latinos  incognitas,  quia  nee  interpretatae,  sed  nee  in 
ceterarum  patriarchalium  sedium,  licet  Grseca  utantur  lingua, 
reperiantur  archivis,  nimirum  quia  nulla  earum,  cum  ederentur, 
aut  promulgans  aut  consentiens  aut  saltern  praesens  inventa 
est."  2 

Pope  Hadrian  I.  seems  to  have  been  somewhat  less 
prudent  than  John  vm.  was  ninety  years  before.  When  the 
latter  refers  to  the  Trullan  rules  with  the  words,  "  Quas 
Grseci  a  sexta  synodo  perhibent  editas,"  and  thereby  gives 
expression  to  the  justifiable  doubt,  Hadrian  accedes  to  the 
Greek  tradition,  without  any  such  critical  addition,  in  his 
letter  to  Tarasius  of  Constantinople  (among  the  Acts  of  the 
second  session  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Council) :  "  Omnes 
sanctas  sex  synodos  suscipio  cum  omnibus  regulis,  quce  jure  ac 
divinitus  ab  ipsis  promulgate  sunt,  inter  quas  continetur,  in 
quibusdam  venerabilium  imaginum  picturis  Agnus  digito 
Prsecursoris  exaratus  ostendi  "  (82nd  Trullan  canon).  And  in 
his  letter  to  the  Frankish  bishops  in  defence  of  the  seventh 

1  According  to  this,  Pope  John  viu.  must  have  pronounced  his  judgment 
on  the  Trullan  canons  at  a  Synod.     Lupus  referred  to  the  Synod  of  Troyes  in 
the  year  878,  at  which  the  Pope  himself  was  present.     Pagi,  ad  ann.  692,  16. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.   p.  982  ;  Hardouin,   t.   iv.    p.   19.     Anastasius  (or  the 
Roman  Synod  under  John  viu. )  is  mistaken  in  regard  to  the  last  statement ; 
for,  (a)  as  we  saw,  p.  237,  the  Greek  patriarchs  were  present  at  the  Trullan 
Council  ;  (&)  and  the  Greeks  received  unhesitatingly  the  Trullan  canons,   as 
canon  1  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod  shows.     Cf.  Assemani,  I.e.   t.  v. 
p.  86. 

v. — 16 


242  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(Ecumenical  Synod  he  says,  c.  35:  "  Idcirco  testimonium  de 
sexta  synodo  Patres  in  septima  protulerunt  (namely,  c.  82  of 
the  Trullan  Synod),  ut  clarifice  ostenderent,  quod,  jam  quando 
sexta  synodus  acta  est,  a  priscis  temporibus  sacras  imagines  et 
historias  pictas  venerabantur."  Probably  Tarasius  of  Con 
stantinople  had  also  written  to  the  Pope  what  he  persuaded 
the  second  of  Nicaea  to,  that  the  same  Fathers  who  held  the 
sixth  Synod  had  added  the  appendix  four  or  five  years  later 
(see  above,  p.  22).  This  historical  and  chronological  asser 
tion,  Hadrian,  as  well  as  the  members  of  the  seventh  (Ecumen 
ical  Council,  seem  to  have  believed.  That,  however,  the  Pope 
would  not  approve  of  all  the  Trullan  canons,  we  read  in  his 
words  quoted  above  :  He  approved  those  "  qa&jure  ac  divinitus 
promulgate  sunt."  Hadrian  i.  seems  here  to  have  done  as 
subsequently  Martin  v.  and  Eugenius  IV.  did  in  the  confirma 
tion  of  the  decrees  of  Constance  and  Basle.  They  selected 
such  expressions  as  did  not  expressly  embrace  the  confirmation 
of  all  the  canons,  but — properly  explained — excluded  a  certain 
number  of  the  decrees  in  question  from  the  papal  ratification 
(see  vol.  i.  pp.  51,  60). 

That  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod  at  Nicaea  ascribed 
the  Trullan  canons  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  spoke 
of  them  entirely  in  the  Greek  spirit,  cannot  astonish  us,  as  it 
was  attended  almost  solely  by  Greeks.  They  specially  pro 
nounced  the  recognition  of  the  canons  in  question  in  their 
own  first  canon  ;  but  their  canons  have  never  received  the 
ratification  of  the  holy  see.1 

SEC.  329.   The  last  Synods  of  the  Seventh  Century. 

Almost  at  the  same  time  as  the  Quinisext  falls  a  great 
English  Synod  under  the  excellent  King  Ina  of  Wessex,  in 
A.D.  691  or  692.  It  is  mentioned  by  Bede  (Hist.  v.  9)  and 
S.  Aldhelm  (Epist.  ad  Geruntium  regem).  Its  decrees  were 
transferred  into  Ina's  Book  of  Laws,  and  we  learn  from  this 
that,  besides  the  King  and  the  secular  grandees  (aldermanni 
et  seniores),  the  Bishops  Heddi  of  Winchester  and  Erconwald  of 
London  multaque  congregatio  servorum  Dei  were  present. 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  710,  2. 


THE   LAST   SYNODS    OF   THE   SEVENTH   CENTURY.  243 

Certainly  the  holy  Abbot  Aldhelm  of  Malmesbury,  this 
friend  and  counsellor  of  the  King,  especially  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  was  not  absent.  They  decreed  : — 

(1)  The  clergy  shall  observe  their  rule  of  life. 

(2)  A  child  must  be  baptized  within  thirty  days  after 
its    birth,   under   penalty    of    thirty  solidi.      If  it  dies  (after 
thirty  days)  unbaptized,  expiation  must  he  made  with  all  the 
property  of  the  parents. 

(3)  If    a    slave    works  on  Sunday,  by  command   of  his 
master,  then  the  slave  goes  free,  and  the  master  is  fined  thirty 
solidi.      If  the  slave  works  on  Sunday  without  the  master's 
command,  he  must  be  scourged  or  pay  quit  money  for  his 
skin.      If  a  freeman  works  on  Sunday,  be  must  lose  his  liberty 
or  pay  thirty  solidi ;  a  priest  double. 

(4)  The  dues  to  the  Church  must  be  paid  on  S.  Martin's 
Day. 

(5)  If  anyone  takes  refuge  in  a  church,  he  may  be  neither 
killed  nor  beaten. 

(6)  Prohibition  of  duels  and  private  feuds. 

(7)  Witnesses  and  sureties  who  lie  are  fined  one  hundred 
and  twenty  solidi. 

(8)  The  first-fruits  must  be  given  from  the  property  which 
is  inhabited  at  Christmas. 

(9)  If    anyone    kills    a    child    to    whom    he    has    been 
sponsor,  or  one    who  has  been  sponsor  to  him, — except  in 
necessary  defence, — he  must  atone  for  this  as  for  the  murder 
of    a    relative.      The    expiatory    fine    is   determined  by  the 
position  of  him  who  is  killed.      For  the  son  of  a  bishop  must 
half  as  much  be  paid  as  for  a  King's  son.1 

In  Spain,  so  rich  in  Synods,  on  May  2,  693,  was  opened 
the  sixteenth  Synod  of  Toledo,  in  the  Church  of  SS.  Peter  and 
Paul.  There  were  present  fifty-nine  bishops  out  of  all  the 
ecclesiastical  provinces  of  Spain,2  besides  five  abbots,  three 
representatives  of  bishops,  and  sixteen  secular  counts.  King 
Egiza  appeared  personally  and  presented  to  the  bishop,  in  the 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  56  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1783. 

2  From   the  province  of  Narbonne  we  meet  only  two  bishops,  Ervigius  of 
Beziers  and  Suniagisidus  of  Lodeve.     Why  the  rest  did  not  come  we  are  told  in 
canon  13. 


244  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

usual  manner,  the  tome,  in  which  the  points  were  enumer 
ated  on  which  he  thought  an  ordinance  of  the  Synod  to  be 
necessary.  First  of  all,  the  orthodox  faith  was  to  be  pro 
claimed  ;  and  then  discipline  was  to  be  improved  in  many 
points.  Specially,  greater  care  was  necessary  for  the  bishops 
on  behalf  of  the  rural  churches  and  the  appointment  of  priests 
over  them,  that  the  Jews  might  not  be  able  to  say  in  scorn : 
"  They  had  well  done  in  shutting  up  and  destroying  their 
synagogues ;  but  they  did  no  better  with  their  Christian 
churches."  Further,  there  was  pressing  need  to  root  out  the 
remains  of  heathen  superstition,  and  also  Judaism;  and  to 
punish  psederastians  and  conspirators  against  the  King  and 
State.  Further,  the  bishops,  when  private  cases  were  laid 
before  them  for  judgment,  must  not  be  partial  or  corruptible. 
King  Egiza  had  in  view,  in  the  last  two  sentences,  the 
case  of  Archbishop  Sisbert  of  Toledo,  who  had  hatched  a  con 
spiracy  to  murder  the  King  and  his  whole  family,  and 
probably  to  raise  to  the  throne  one  of  his  own  relations  (he 
sprang  from  a  high  Gothic  family).  The  matter  was  betrayed  ; 
Sisbert  was  thrown  into  prison,  and  placed  before  the  present 
Synod,  to  be  tried.  Ferreras,  the  historian  of  Spain,  thinks 
that  it  was  for  this  very  matter  that  the  Synod  was  called,1 
and  we  find,  in  fact,  at  the  end  of  its  Acts,  a  letter  from  the 
King,  in  which  the  Synod  is  requested  to  deliver  its  judg 
ment  as  to  the  punishment  of  treason  against  the  King. — 
Like  other  Synods  at  Toledo,  this  also  placed  at  the  head  of 
its  minutes  a  full  confession  of  faith,  in  which  especially  the 
orthodox  Dyothelite  doctrine  was  suitably  unfolded.  Then 
followed  1 3  Capitula  : — 

(1)  The  old  laws  against  the  Jews,  in  order  to  force  them 
to  conversion,  shall  be  exactly  followed;  and  every  Jew,  who 
sincerely    converts,    shall    be    free    from    all    taxes    to    the 
exchequer  which  the  Jews  are  required  to  pay,  and  shall  be 
regarded  as  quite  equal  to  the  other  subjects  of  the  King. 

(2)  Bishops,  priests,  and  judges  must  be  zealously  con 
cerned  to  root  out  the  remains  of  heathenism — the  venerating 
of  stones,  trees,  fountains,  the  kindling  of  torches,  soothsaying, 
magic,  etc.,  under  penalty  of  a  year's  deposition  and  excom- 

1  Ferreras,  Hist,  of  Spain,  vol.  ii. 


THE   LAST   SYNODS   OF   THE   SEVENTH   CENTURY.  245 

munication.  Those,  however,  who  practise  such  superstition 
and  do  not  amend,  shall,  if  of  high  rank,  be  fined  three  pounds 
of  gold,  if  of  lower,  shall  receive  one  hundred  lashes. 

(3)  The  prevalence  of  sodomy  makes  severe  punishments 
necessary.     If  a  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon  commits  this  sin,  he 
shall  be  deposed  and  banished  for  life.     Moreover,  the  old  law 
remains  in  force,  according  to  which   every  such   sinner  is 
excluded  from  all  communion  with  Christians,  scourged  with 
rods,  deprived  of  his  hair  in  disgrace,  and  banished. — If  they 
have  not  sufficiently  done  penance,  the  communion  is  not  to 
be  administered  to  them  even  on  their  deathbed. 

(4)  If  anyone  has  attempted  to  commit  suicide,  and  has 
been  prevented,  he  is  to  be  excluded  for  two  months  from  all 
fellowship  with  Catholics  and  from  the  holy  communion. 

(5)  Some  bishops  burden  too  much  the  churches  subject 
to  them  with  taxes,  and  let  many  of  them  go  to  ruin.     There 
fore  the  bishops  shall  spend  the  third  part  of  the  income  of 
the  church,  which  by  old  law  belongs  to  them,  when  they 
have  obtained  it,  on  the  restoration  of  decayed  churches.      If 
they  prefer,  however,  to  return  that  third,  then  those  who  are 
connected   with    the    church    must    attend    to    the    repairs. 
Besides,  the  bishops  may  demand  nothing  of  the  parishioners, 
and  must  give  away  nothing  of  the  property  of  the  Church  to 
others.     Moreover,  several  churches  may  not  be  given  over  to 
one  priest.     A  church  which  possesses  ten  mancipia l  (farm 
houses)  must  have  a  priest  of  its  own ;  if  fewer,  it  is  to  be 
united  with  another  church. 

(6)  It  sometimes  happens  that  clerics  at  Mass  do  not 
employ   specially    prepared    Breads,    but   cut  a  round  piece 
from  their  house-bread  (de  panibus  suis  usibus  prceparatis,  and 
so  probably  leavened)  and  use  it  for  the  sacrifice.     This  may 
no  longer  be  done.      Only  whole  bread,  not  pieces  cut  off,  and 
whole  bread  prepared  with  care,  not  too  large,  but  a  modica 
ollata,  may  be  placed  for  consecration  upon  the  altar. 

(7)  Six  months  after  the  holding  of  a  provincial  Synod, 
every  bishop  assembles  the  abbots,  clergy,  and  laity  of  his 
diocese,  in  order  to  communicate  to  them  the  decrees. 

1  On  mancipia,  cf.  Du  Cange,   Gloss,  s.v.     By  this  are  meant  farmhouses 
which  have  been  built  by  the  slaves  of  the  Church  (mancipia}  and  their  families. 


246  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

(8)  On  account  of  the  great  merits  of  the  King  in  respect 
to   the  Church  and  in  respect  to  the  people,  shall  all  clerics 
and  laymen  be  sworn  to  be  faithful  to  his  posterity,  and  to 
support  no  plan  for  removing  them  from  the  throne.      More 
over,  for  the  King  and    his  family  the  holy  sacrifice  shall 
be  offered  daily  at   every  episcopal    and  rural  church,  and 
prayers  shall  be  offered,  except  on  Good  Friday,  when  no  Mass 
may  be  said. 

(9)  Archbishop  Sisbert  of  Toledo  wished  not  merely  to 
deprive  the  King  of  the  kingdom,  but  also  to  murder  him 
and  his  children,  Flogellus,  Theodemir,  Liubilan,  Biubigithon, 
and  Thecla.     We  have  therefore  already  deposed  him,  and 
this  sentence  must  remain  in  force.     Moreover,  in  accordance 
with  the  ancient  canons,  he  must  be  banished,  excommuni 
cated,  and  deprived  of  all  his  property.      Only  at  the  end  of 
his  life  can  he  again  receive  the  communion.1 

(10)  As  conspiracies  and   treasons  are  so   frequent,  they 
must  be  threatened  with  heavy  penalties. 

(11)  Thanks  be  to  God  !     God  save  the  King  ! 

(12)  To  the  archiepiscopal  see  of  Toledo  we  remove,  with 
assent  of  the  people  and  clergy,  Felix,  previously  archbishop 
of  Seville,  to  whom  the  King   has  assigned  the  temporary 
administration  of  the  see  of  Toledo.      For  Seville  we  appoint 
Faustinus,  archbishop  of  Braga ;  for  Braga,  Felix,  bishop  of 
Portucala  (a  port  on  the  Douro). 

(13)  Because  the  bishops  of  the  province  of  Narbonne 
were  unable  to  come  to  the  Synod,  in  consequence  of  a  sick 
ness  that  had  broken  out  among  them,2  they  shall  hold  a 
provincial  Synod  in  Narbonne,  and  there  adopt  and  subscribe 
the  decrees  here  recorded.3 


1  Of.  Concil.  Tolet.  iv.  c.  75  ;  Tolet.  v.  c.  4  ;  Tolet.  vi.  c.  17  ;  Tolet.  x.  c.  2. 

2  Florez  (Espana  Sagrada,  t.  vi.  p.  227)  takes  this  quite  literally,  as  though 
not  a  single  bishop  of  the  province  of  Narbonne  had  been  present,  and  therefore 
supposes  that  Ervig,  who  is  mentioned  above  (p.  243,  note  2),  who  was  present 
at  this  Synod,  was  not  bishop  of  Beziers  (in  the  province  of  Narbonne),  but  of 
Caldabria  in  the  province  of  Mexida.     On  Suniagisid  Ep.  Laniobiensis  (probably 
=  Lutrebensis,  Lodeve),  he  says  nothing. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  59  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1786  sqq. ;  Aguirre,  Concilia 
His}},  t.  ii.  p.  735  sqq. ;  Gonzalez,  Coleccion,  etc.,  Madrid  1849,  t.  ii.  p.  553  sqq.; 
Gams,  Kircheng.  von  Spanien,  Bd.  ii.  Thl.  ii.  S.  180ff. 


THE  LAST  SYNODS  OF  THE  SEVENTH  CENTURY.     247 

A  conspiracy,  in  which  the  Spanish  Jews  with  their 
co-religionists  in  Africa  took  part,  gave  occasion  for  King 
Egiza  holding  another  Spanish  general  Council  in  the  follow 
ing  year,  694.  Many  bishops  and  secular  grandees  (number 
and  names  are  unknown  to  us,  as  the  subscriptions  have  not 
been  preserved)  assembled  on  November  9,  694,  in  the 
Church  of  S.  Leocadia,  in  the  suburb  of  Toledo  (seventeenth 
Synod  of  Toledo),  and  after  having,  in  the  customary  manner, 
recited  the  confession  of  faith,  drew  up  8  canons  or  Capitula : 

(1)  At    the    beginning    of    a    Synod    all    the    sacer dotes 
(bishops)    shall  fast  for  three  days  in  honour  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  and  in  this  time,  without  the  presence  of  the  laity, 
hold    converse  on    the   doctrines   of    the    faith  and   on   the 
improvement  of  the  morals  of  the  clergy.     After  that  they 
shall  proceed  to  other  subjects. 

(2)  At  the  beginning  of  Lent,  since  from  that  time  there 
are  no  more  baptisms,  except  in  case  of  extreme  necessity, 
the  font  shall  be  sealed  by  the  bishop  with  his  ring,  and  so 
remain  until  the  stripping  of  the  altar  at  the  feast  of  the 
Ccena  Domini. 

(3)  The  washing  of  feet  at  the  feast  of  the  Cc&na  Domini, 
which  has  fallen  into  disuse  in  some  places,  must  be  observed 
everywhere. 

(4)  The  holy  vessels  and  other  ornaments  of  the  Church 
may   not   be   expended   by    the   clergy   for   themselves,  nor 
sold,  etc. 

(5)  Some  priests  hold  Masses  for  the  dead,  on  behalf  of 
the  living,  that  these  may  soon  die.     The  priest  who  does  this, 
and  the   person  who  induced   him   to   do  it,  shall  both   be 
deposed    and    forever    anathematised  and    excommunicated. 
Only  on  their  deathbed  may  the  communion  be    again  ad 
ministered  to  them. 

(6)  All  the  year  through,  in  all  the  twelve  months,  shall 
Exomologeseis    ( =  Litanice,  see   Du    Cange,  s.v.)    with    inter 
cessions  be  said  for  the  Church,  the  King,  and  the  people, 
that  God  may  forgive  them  all. 

(7)  The  older  laws  for  ensuring  the  safety  of  the  royal 
family  are  renewed. 

(8)  As  the  Jews  have  added  to  their  other  crimes  this 


248  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

that  they  endeavoured  to  overthrow  the  country  and  the 
people,  they  must  be  severely  punished.  They  have  done 
this  after  they  had  (in  appearance)  received  baptism,  which, 
however,  by  faithlessness  they  have  again  stained.  They  shall 
be  deprived  of  their  property  for  the  benefit  of  the  exchequer, 
and  shall  be  made  slaves  forever.  Those  to  whom  the  King 
sends  them  as  slaves  must  watch  that  they  may  no  longer 
practise  Jewish  usages,  and  their  children  must  be  separated 
from  them,  when  they  are  seven  years  of  age,  and  sub 
sequently  married  with  Christians.  The  King  ratified  these 
decrees.1 

In  the  same  year,  694  [692  ?],  King  Withred  [Wihtred] 
of  Kent  held  an  assembly  at  Beccancelde  [Bapchild],  which 
is  called  a  Synod,  but  in  character  was  a  parliament,  at  which 
resolutions  were  taken  also  with  regard  to  the  privileges  of 
the  Church.  The  King  himself  presided.  There  were  also 
present  the  two  bishops  of  the  kingdom  of  Kent,  namely, 
Archbishop  Brithwald  [Bertwald]  of  Canterbury,  successor  to 
Theodore,  and  Tobias  of  Koffa  (Eochester),  with  five  abbesses,2 
several  priests,  and  many  secular  grandees.  The  King  spoke 
thus :  "  In  the  name  of  God  and  all  the  saints,  I  deny  to  all 
my  successors,  to  all  prefects  and  laymen  forever,  authority 
over  churches  and  their  property.  If  a  bishop  dies,  or  an 
abbess,  this  shall  be  announced  to  the  archbishop,  and  with 
his  counsel  and  assent  a  worthy  successor  shall  be  elected. 
This  in  no  way  concerns  the  King's  government.  It  belongs 
to  him  to  nominate  counts,  dukes,  princes,  judges,  etc.;  but  it 
is  the  business  of  the  archbishop  to  govern  the  churches,  to 
appoint,  confirm,  and  admonish  bishops,  abbots,  abbesses,  etc., 
that  no  one  may  stray  from  the  flock  of  Christ."  Finally,  he 
granted  the  churches  freedom  from  taxes  and  other  burdens, 
and  they  were  required  only  to  bring  voluntary  contributions 
to  the  State,  if  they  held  it  necessary.3 

The   same  King  Withred  arranged   for    (A.D.    697)    the 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  94  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1810  sq. ;  Aguirre,  I.e.  p.  752 
sqq. ;  Coleccion  de  Canones,  I.e.  p.  588  sqq.:  Gams,  I.e.  S.  183. 

2  On  the  presence  of  abbesses  at  English  Councils,  cf.  vol.  i.  p.  24. 

3  We  still  possess  the  brief  Acts  of  this  assembly  in  three  draughts,  in  Mansi, 
t.  xii.  p.  87  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1806  sqq.    Cf.  Montalernbert,  Moines  de 
I 'Occident,  vol.  v. 


THE  LAST  SYNODS   OF  THE  SEVENTH   CENTURY.  249 

Synod  at  Berkhampstead  [Barsted]  under  Archbishop 
Bertwald  of  Canterbury  and  Gybmund,  bishop  of  Eochester. 
There  were,  besides,  many  clerical  and  lay  dignitaries  present. 
The  2  8  canons,  called  also  Judicia  WitJiredi  regis,  decree : — 

(1)  The  churches  are    free  from    taxes,  and  shall  offer 
prayers  for  the  King. 

(2)  If  anyone  violates  the  rights  of  the  Church,  he  will 
be  fined  fifty  solidi,  just  as  if  he  had  violated  the  rights  of 
the  King. 

(3)  Adulterers  must  correct  themselves  by  penance,  or 
they  will  be  excommunicated. 

(4)  Foreigners  who  conduct    themselves  unchastely  will 
be  driven  out  of  the  country. 

(5)  If  the  prefect  of  a  pagus  (cf.  Du  Cange,  s.v.  Paganus, 
is    guilty    of    unchastity,    he    shall    be    fined    one    hundred 
solidi. 

(6)  The  colonus  is  fined  fifty  solidi. 

(7)  If    a   priest    has   allowed  this   sin,  or   deferred   the 
baptism  of  a  sick  person,  or  has  been  so  intoxicated  that  he 
cannot  fulfil  his  duty,  he  is  deposed. 

(8)  To  a  tonsured  person,  who  travels  about,  lodging  may 
be  given  only  once. 

(9)  If  anyone  has  liberated  his  slave  at  the  altar,  he  is 
free ;  but  his  inheritance  belongs  to  his  liberator,  and   the 
cestimatio  capitis. 

(10)  If  a    servant,  by  command   of  his   master,  works 
between  the  (first)  vespers  of  Sunday  and  that  of  Monday 
(i.e.    between   Saturday   evening   and    Sunday   evening),   the 
master  must  expiate  this  by  a  payment  of  fifty  solidi. 

(11)  If  the  slave  does  it  voluntarily,  he  must  pay  his 
master  six  solidi,  or  be  flogged.1 

(12)  If  a  freeman  works  at  the  forbidden  time,  he  is  to 
be  put  in  the  pillory  (collistrigium). 

(13)  If    anyone    sacrifices    to    the    devil,    he    is    to    be 
punished  with  confiscation  of  goods  and  the  pillory. 

(14)  A  slave  who  does  so  is  fined  six  solidi  or  beaten. 

(15)  If  anyone  gives  his  slave  meat  on  a  fast  day,  he 
must  redeem  himself  from  the  pillory. 

1  Cute  privari  =fustibus  casdi.     See  Du  Cange,  s.v.  Cutis. 


250  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

(16)  If  the  slave  eats  meat  on  his  own  accord,  he  must 
be  fined  six  solidi  or  beaten. 

(17)  The  word  of  the  bishop  or  King  is  as  valid  as  an  oath. 
(18—24)  Prescriptions  on  oaths  of  purification. 

(25)  If  anyone  kills  a  layman  in  the  act  of  stealing,  he 
has  no  fine  to  pay  in  expiation. 

(26)  A  freeman  who  is  caught  with  stolen  property  in 
his  hand,  may  be  either  put  to  death  by  the  King,  or  sold 
over  the   sea,  or  he  must   redeem  his  life  from   the  King. 
Anyone  who   has  informed   upon   him  receives  half   of   the 
money;  but  if  anyone  kills  the  thief,  he  must  compensate  by 
payment  of  seventy  solidi. 

(27)  A  slave  who  steals  must  have  his  offence  expiated 
by  payment  of  seventy  solidi    (by  his  master),  or  must  be 
sold  over  the  sea. 

(28)  A  stranger  who  roves  about  (a  tramp)  is  to  be  re 
garded  as  a  thief.1 

To  these  canons  there  are,  in  the  old  MSS.,  ten  more 
ordinances  or  compensations  for  offences  against  the  Church 
and  clergy,  without  any  intimation  of  the  source  from  which 
they  proceed. 

A  Synod  at  Auxerre  (A.D.  695)  arranged  the  order  in 
which  the  clergy  of  particular  churches  and  monasteries 
were  to  hold  divine  service  in  the  cathedral  church  of 
S.  Stephen.  The  Council  of  Utrecht  of  A.D.  697,  however, 
is  a  falsification  of  pseudo-Marcellinus.2  The  Synod  of 
Aquileia,  about  the  year  700,  we  have  already  noticed,  vol. 
iv.  p.  355. 

SEC.   330.    The  Western  Synods  in  the  first  quarter  of  the 
Eighth  Century. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  (about  701)  falls 
the  eighteenth  and  last  Synod  of  Toledo,  under  King  Witiza 
and  Archbishop  Gunderic  of  Toledo.  Its  Acts  are  lost.3 

1  Mansi,  t.   xii.  p.   Ill ;   Hardouin,  I.e.   p.  1818  ;  Bruns,  Biblioth.  Ecdes. 
pt.  ii.  p.  311.    (Hardouin  has  the  older  and  inferior  text.)   Cf.  Montalembert,  I.e. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  107  sqq.  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  697,  2. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  163  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  701,  4  ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  701,  15. 


THE  WESTERN  SYNODS   IN   THE   EIGHTH   CENTURY.         251 

Witiza,  who  had  recently  come  to  the  throne,  was  at  that 
time  still  zealous  for  good ;  but  soon  afterwards  fell  into  the 
grossest  excesses,  so  that  he  not  only  dishonoured  many 
wives  and  maidens,  but  also,  in  a  special  law,  allowed  to 
husbands  concubines  in  any  number  they  pleased,  and 
declared  the  law  of  celibacy  for  priests  abolished.  When 
Archbishop  Gunderic  made  representations  to  him,  he  was 
deposed,  and  Sindered,  the  King's  friend,  who  greatly 
oppressed  the  better  clergy,  raised  to  the  metropolitan  see. 
Crime  and  incontinence  spread  more  and  more ;  but  at  the 
same  time  the  discontent  with  the  bad  King  grew  to  such  a 
pitch  that  a  party  raised  Prince  Eodrigo,  a  son  of  Duke 
Theodofrid,  to  be  King.  An  end  was  put  to  the  civil  war 
which  sprang  out  of  this  by  the  death  of  Witiza,  A.D.  710; 
but  his  sons,  driven  from  the  throne  by  Eodrigo,  called  the 
Saracens  into  the  country,  and  thus  brought  it  for  many 
centuries  under  the  power  of  the  infidels. 

A  good  many,  if  not  very  important  Synods  meet  us  now 
in  England.  We  saw  above  (p.  207)  that  Archbishop  Wilfrid 
of  York,  after  having  become  reconciled  with  Theodore  of 
Canterbury,  had  been  restored  to  his  bishopric.  But  his 
enemies  did  not  cease  to  stir  up  the  Northumbrian  King 
Alfrid  [Alchfrid]  against  him.  So  it  came  that  the  King,  by 
his  own  authority,  separated  the  monastery  of  Eipon  from  the 
bishopric  of  York,  and  made  it  a  bishopric  by  itself ;  and 
Wilfrid,  from  fear  of  the  King,  thought  it  well  to  flee  into 
Mercia,  where  the  bishopric  of  Lichfield  was  conferred  upon 
him.  King  Alfrid  now  got  together  the  Synod,  or  more 
exactly  the  parliament,  of  the  kingdom  (Witenagemote)  at 
Nesterfield  [Easterfield]  in  Northumbria,  under  the  presi 
dency  of  Bertwald  of  Canterbury,  who  likewise  belonged  to 
the  enemies  of  Wilfrid.  He  had  been  persuaded,  by  the 
promise  of  a  fair  trial,  to  appear  at  the  Synod ;  but  from 
the  very  beginning  he  was  deluged  with  bitter  words  and 
reproaches,  especially  by  the  two  bishops,  Boso  and  John, 
who  had  as  dioceses  the  pieces  rent  away  from  the  bishopric 
of  York,  but  which  they  had  been  forced  to  give  up  again  to 
Wilfrid.  When  he  was  asked  whether  he  would  obey  the 
ordinances  of  the  departed  Archbishop  Theodore  of  Canter- 


252  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

bury,  he  answered  suitably  :  "  Yes,  to  those  which  agreed 
with  the  holy  canons " ;  for  he  saw  well  that  they  wanted 
to  bring  the  earlier  unfair  decrees  of  Theodore  into  exercise 
(vol.  iv.  p.  491),  but  not  the  later  ones.  As  he  further 
opposed  them  in  a  violent  disputation,  and  remarked  that  for 
twenty-two  years  the  ordinances  of  three  Popes,  Agatho,  Bene 
dict,  and  Sergius,  had  been  disregarded  by  them,  and  forever 
only  that  brought  forward  which  Theodore  had  done  in  the 
time  of  their  disunion,  King  Alfrid  became  enraged,  and 
declared  that  he  would  forcibly  deprive  Wilfrid  of  all  his 
possessions.  Archbishop  Bertwald  was  in  agreement  with 
this  ;  but  to  the  other  enemies  of  Wilfrid  this  seemed  too 
hard  in  regard  to  a  man  so  famous,  and  they  endeavoured  to 
persuade  him  that  he  should  content  himself  with  the 
monastery  of  Eipon,  so  as  to  live  in  peace  there,  and 
voluntarily,  by  a  written  document,  resign  his  bishopric  and 
all  his  other  possessions.  Wilfrid  rejected  this  proposal  with 
decision,  saying :  "  How  can  you  expect  me  to  draw  the 
sword  against  myself,  and  condemn  myself  ? "  Should  I  not 
by  that  means  brand  my  episcopal  honour  which  for  forty 
years  I  have  preserved  unspotted  ?  "  He  reminded  them  at  the 
same  time  of  his  deserts,  how  he  was  the  first  to  introduce  in 
Northumbria  the  correct  Easter  festival,  the  singing  of  anti- 
phons,  and  the  rule  of  S.  Benedict.  Now,  as  a  man  of  seventy 
years,  he  should  condemn  himself.  He  appealed  to  the  Pope. 
In  fact,  supported  by  King  Ethelred  of  Mercia,  he  now 
hastened  to  Eome,  where  Pope  John  vi.  immediately  held 
a  Synod  (703  to  704)  for  the  examination  of  his  case. 
In  the  letter  which  he  presented  to  the  Pope,  he  relates 
briefly  what  had  occurred,  and  prays  the  Pope  to  examine 
the  matter,  and  give  him  a  letter  to  take  with  him  to  King 
Alfrid  of  Northumbria,  so  that  he  might  be  restored  to  his 
possessions.  If,  however,  his  reinstatement  in  the  bishopric 
of  York  were  too  disagreeable  to  the  King,  they  might  leave  him 
the  two  monasteries  of  Eipon  and  Hagulstad  [Hexham],  which 
he  had  himself  founded  in  that  diocese.  Finally,  he  declared 
that  he  would  obey  all  the  ordinances  of  Archbishop  Bertwald 
which  were  not  opposed  to  those  of  the  earlier  Popes  in 
regard  to  him. 


THE   WESTERN   SYNODS   IN   THE   EIGHTH    CENTURY.         253 

The  deputies  of  Bertwald,  who  were  likewise  present  at 
the  Eoman  Synod,  had  represented  that  Wilfrid,  at  the 
English  Synod  at  Nesterfield  [Easterfield],  had  refused 
obedience  to  Archbishop  Bertwald ;  but  he  was  able  to  prove 
the  falseness  of  this  accusation.  The  Romans  remarked  that, 
by  all  right,  accusers,  whose  first  charge  was  shown  to  be 
groundless,  should  no  longer  be  heard ;  but,  out  of  respect 
for  Bertwald,  they  would  make  an  exception  and  examine 
specially  all  the  particular  points.  This  took  place  in 
seventy  sessions,  carried  on  for  four  months,  and  resulted  en 
tirely  in  favour  of  Wilfrid.1  We  learn  this  from  the  letter 
of  Pope  John  vi.  (not  vn.,  as  it  is  given  erroneously  in  the 
Collections  of  Councils)  to  the  Kings  Alfrid  of  Northumbria 
and  Ethelbert  of  Mercia,  in  which,  among  other  things,  he 
says  :  "  As  the  two  bishops,  Boso  and  John,  whose  claims  were 
chiefly  in  question, — in  opposition  to  Wilfrid, — had  not 
appeared  in  Rome,  they  had  arrived  at  no  quite  definite 
decision,  but  recommended  Archbishop  Bertwald,  in  com 
munion  with  Alfrid,  to  hold  a  Synod,  and  to  summon  Boso 
and  John  also  to  it,  in  order  to  bring  about  an  adjustment  of 
the  opposed  claims :  if  this  did  not  succeed,  they  should  all 
come  to  Rome  for  a  further  examination  of  the  matter."- 
Wilfrid  wished  to  remain  in  Rome,  in  order  there  to  close  his 
days  in  peace,  giving  way  to  his  opponents,  but  the  Pope 
ordered  his  return.  Wilfrid  obeyed,  and  immediately  after 
his  arrival,  Archbishop  Bertwald  was  reconciled  to  him.  He 
then  went  to  Mercia,  and  found  the  friendliest  reception  with 
Ethelred,  formerly  King,  who  in  the  meantime  had  exchanged 
the  crown  for  the  monk's  habit,  as  well  as  with  the  new  King 
Coenred.  King  Alfrid  [Aldfrid]  of  Kent,  however,  agreed  to 
the  papal  ordinances  only  in  consequence  of  a  serious  illness, 
of  which  he  died,  A.D.  705. 

Immediately  afterwards,  when  the  usurper  Edulf  was  de- 

1  Baronius,  ad  ann.  705,  6,  identified  this  Synod  with  that  at  the  holding  of 
which  Pope  John  vii.  was  requested  to  point  out  what  was  amiss  in  the  Trullan 
canons.  See  above,  p.  240.  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  not  certain  that 
John  vir.  held  such  a  Synod  (Anastasius,  who  relates  the  affair,  says  not  a  single 
syllable  of  the  actual  holding  of  a  Synod)  ;  moreover,  the  acquittal  of  Wilfrid 
belongs  to  the  pontificate  of  John  vi.,  not  vn.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  704,  8  ; 
705,  4,  12. 


254  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

feated,  a  Synod  was  held  somewhere  on  the  river  Nidd  in 
Northumbria,  in  the  reign  of  King  Osred  (son  of  Alfrid)  of 
Kent,  a  minor,  by  Archbishop  Bertwald,  A.D.  705  [or  706]. 
According  to  the  papal  letter,  which  was  now  made  public, 
Bishops  Boso  and  John  were  offered  the  alternative,  either  to 
give  up  their  dioceses  to  Wilfrid  or  to  go  to  Eome  and  there 
defend  their  cause.  But  if  they  did  neither  the  one  nor  the 
other,  they  should  fall  under  excommunication.  When  both 
resisted,  the  Abbess  Elfleda  of  Streneshald  [Strenaeshalch  or 
Whitby],  the  sister  of  Alfrid,  interposed  and  explained : 
"  Here  is  the  testament  of  my  brother :  in  my  presence  he 
declared  that,  if  he  got  well  again,  he  would  instantly  fulfil 
the  ordinances  of  the  Pope,  and  if  he  died  before  doing  so,  he 
would  commit  that  work  to  his  successor."  Prince  Bertrid, 
the  guardian  of  the  young  King,  entirely  agreed  with  this. 
The  opponents  had  to  yield,  a  general  reconciliation  took 
place,  and  Wilfrid  received  back  his  two  best  monasteries, 
Kipon  and  Hexham  (the  latter  also  a  bishopric).1  Tour 
years  afterwards  he  died,  A.D.  709.2 

Of  less  importance  are  six  other  English  Councils  of  this 
period,  of  which  only  very  slight  intelligence  has  reached  us. 
The  first  of  these,  in  Mercia,  A.D.  7 05,  gave  to  the  learned  and 
holy  Abbot  Aldhelm  of  Malmesbury  the  commission  to  pre 
pare  a  memorial  against  the  false  Easter  festival  of  the 
ancient  Britons  (see  vol.  i.  p.  330).3  Eeference  is  made  to 
a  Synod  held  on  the  river  Noddre  (now  Adderburn)  only 
in  a  document  of  Donation  of  S.  Aldhelm.  In  a  third,  held 
in  Wessex  under  King  Ina,  after  the  death  of  Bishop  Hedda, 
who  had  the  whole  of  Wessex  under  him  (with  the  see  at 
Yintonia  =  Winchester),  his  diocese  was  divided  into  the 
bishoprics  of  Vintonia,  which  was  given  to  Daniel,  and 
Scireburnia  (Sherborne),  which  was  given  to  Aldhelm. 

1  John  received  York.     Boso,  however,  died  about  this  time. 

2  The  Acts  of  the  three  Synods  of  Easterfield,  Rome,  and  on  the  Nidd,  are 
found  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  158-174  ;  Hardouiu,  t.  iii.  pp.  1822-1828,  and  are 
mostly  drawn  from  the  old  biographies  of  S.  Wilfrid  by  Eddius.     Cf.  Monta- 
lembert,   Moines  de  I' Occident  [English  translation  published  by  Blackwood], 
vol.  iv.  ;  Schrodl,  Das  erste  Jahrhundert  der  englischen  Kirclie,   S.   260-271  ; 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  702,  3-6  ;  704,  8,  9  ;  705,  4-12. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  167  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1823. 


THE   WESTERN   SYNODS   IN   THE   EIGHTH    CENTURY.         255 

With  this  Synod  we  must  not  confound  one  under  King 
Ina  which  again  undertook  a  division  of  the  bishopric  of  Vin- 
tonia  (Winchester).  Bede  tells  us  of  this  (lib.  v.  c.  18).  In 
consequence  of  the  occurrences  in  war,  the  East  Saxons 
were  deprived  of  their  own  bishopric  (London),  and  were 
placed  under  the  bishop  of  the  West  Saxons  at  Vintonia 
(Bede,  iv.  15).  This  union  was  now  again  dissolved  by  a 
Synod  which  undoubtedly  belonged  to  the  year  7 II.1  Another 
English  Synod,  under  King  Ina,  about  the  year  708,  was 
occasioned  by  the  sudden  breaking  out  of  a  riot,  and  was,  of 
necessity,  held  in  such  haste  that  it  was  impossible  to  invite 
Archbishop  Bertwald  to  it.  In  order  to  supply  this  defect, 
the  King  and  the  Synod  sent  the  monk  Winfrid  (the  future 
apostle  of  the  Germans  [Boniface] )  to  the  archbishop  to 
inform  him  of  it.2  The  Synod  at  Alne,  finally,  in  the  year 
700,  confirmed  the  gifts  made  to  the  monastery  of  Evesham.3 

More  recent  writers  mention  also  a  Synod  quite  unknown 
to  the  ancients,  at  London,  A.D.  712,  by  which  the  veneration 
of  images  was  introduced  into  the  English  Church.  Bishop 
Egwin  of  Wigornia  (Worcester),  from  a  divine  vision,  set  up 
an  effigy  of  the  Virgin  in  his  church.  The  matter  had  created 
a  sensation,  was  carried  to  Kome,  and  thereupon  a  legate  was 
sent  by  Pope  Constantine  to  England  in  order  to  hold  our 
Synod.  They  pronounced  in  favour  of  the  veneration  of 
images.  But  before  this,  the  apostle  of  England,  Augustine, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Bede,  practically  introduced  the 
veneration  of  images,  since  he  had  carried  before  him  and  his 
companions  a  picture  of  the  Saviour  painted  upon  a  panel.4 
— Quite  as  uncertain  is  the  English  Synod  which  is  said  to 
have  been  celebrated  on  the  occasion  of  the  fancied  marriage 
of  Ina  with  Guala,  and  permitted  marriages  between  Anglo- 
Saxons,  Britons,  and  Scots.5 

To  the  realm  of  fable  belong  four  German  Synods,  two  at 

1  Cf.   Bede,   Hist.   Ecdes.  v.  18,  ed.  Migne,  t.  vi.  p.  261.     [Ed.  Moberly, 
Oxon.  1881,  p.  329] ;  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  175. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  178.  3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  187. 

4  Bede,  Hist.  i.  35  ;  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  209. 

5  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  210  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  1847  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  15  ;  740,  2. 
Ina's  consort,  who  accompanied  him  after  his  abdication  on  his  journey  to  Rome, 
was  called  Ethelburga. 


256  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Tungern  and  two  at  Liege,  which  Bishop  S.  Hubert  is  said  to 
have  held  between  the  years  708  and  726.  It  is  known  that 
Hubert  removed  the  seat  of  the  bishopric  of  Tungern,  which 
was  formerly  at  Maestricht,  to  Liege.1  The  short  and  little 
authenticated  information  respecting  these  pretended  German 
Synods  was  collected  by  Harzheim  (Condi.  Germ.  t.  i. 
p.  31  sqq.).  Binterim  also  speaks  of  them  (Deutsche  Con- 
cilien,  Bd.  ii.  S.  1 1  ff.) ;  but  the  definite  declaration  of  S. 
Boniface,  the  apostle  of  the  Germans  (Ep.  51,  ad  Zachar.), 
that  for  eighty  years  no  Synod  (provincial  Synod)  had  been 
held  in  the  country  of  the  Franks,  testifies  against  the 
existence  of  these  pretended  Councils  at  Liege  and  Tungern, 
as  they  made  a  claim  to  be  more  than  mere  diocesan  Synods. 
At  the  second  at  Tungern,  e.g.,  no  fewer  than  thirty  bishops 
are  said  to  have  been  present ;  the  second  and  last,  at  Liege, 
A.D.  726,  is  very  suspicious,  for  this  reason,  that  it  was  sum 
moned  on  account  of  the  stories  about  images,  which  Bishop 
Hubert  (already  ?)  had  found  in  his  diocese.  Also  it  is  said 
to  have  repeated  the  decrees  of  a  Eoman  Synod  (under 
Gregory  II.),  which  is  itself  highly  dubious. 

The  only  subject  before  the  Synod  at  Vicovalari,  in  the 
Lombard  kingdom,  A.D.  715,  was  a  dispute  about  boundaries 
between  the  bishops  of  Arezzo  and  Siena ; 2  but  that  is  very 
improbable  which  is  related  by  pseudo-Mar cellinus,  that,  after 
the  death  of  the  Frisian  King  Rathod(719),  S.  Boniface,  with 
Willibrord,  Suidbert,  and  other  bishops  and  priests,  held  a 
Synod  at  Utrecht.3 

A  Eoman  Synod  under  Pope  Gregory  n.,  on  April  5, 
721,  celebrated  in  S.  Peter's  Church,  drew  up  17  canons  for 
the  improving  of  Church  discipline  :  (1)  If  any  one  marries 
the  wife  (widow)  of  a  priest  (presbyter a,  see  vol.  ii.  p.  421, 
c.  18);  (2)  or  a  deaconess;  (3)  or  a  nun;  (4)  or  his 
spiritual  Commater  (see  Schulte,  EherecJit,  S.  190);  (5)  or 
the  wife  of  his  brother  ;  (6)  or  his  niece ;  (7)  his  stepmother 

1  Cf.  vol.  iv.    p.   367,  note  4  ;    and  Rettberg,   Kirchenges.   Deutschlands, 
Bd.  i.  S.  550  f. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  251  sqq. 

3  Mansi,    I.e.   p.    260 ;    Seiters,   Bonifacius,    der    Apostel    der  Deutschen, 
1845,  S.  108. 


MONOTHELITISM   RENEWED   AND   SUPPRESSED   IN   THE   EAST.      257 

or  daughter-in-law ;  (8)  his  first  cousin ;  (9)  or  a  relation  or 
the  wife  of  a  relation,  let  him  be  anathema.  So  also  (10)  if 
a  man  marries  a  widow,  or  (11)  ravishes  a  virgin  who  was 
not  his  betrothed,  in  order  to  take  her  as  his  wife — even 
when  she  consents;  (12)  or  if  he  is  guilty  of  superstitious 
usages,  or  (13)  violates  the  earlier  commands  of  the  Apostolic 
Church  in  regard  to  the  olive-yards  belonging  to  it ;  (14)  Let 
Hadrian,  who  married  the  deaconess  Epiphania,  be  anathema ; 
(15)  so  also  Epiphania,  and  (16)  whoever  helped  her  ;  finally, 
(17)  every  cleric  who  lets  his  hair  grow. — It  is  subscribed  by 
the  Pope,  nineteen  Italian  bishops,  and  three  strange  ones  ; 
by  Sindred  of  Toledo,  of  whom  we  have  heard  (p.  251),  now  a 
fugitive  because  of  the  Moors ;  by  Sedulius  from  Britain,  and 
Fergustus  from  Scotland ;  also  by  many  Eoman  priests  and 
deacons.1 

Under  the  same  Pope,  Gregory  IL,  came  Corbinian,  the 
founder  of  the  bishopric  of  Freisingen,  to  Eome,  and  prayed 
for  permission  to  resign.  A  Roman  Synod,  however,  which 
the  Pope  assembled  in  724,  and  at  which  Corbinian  himself 
was  present,  found  it  necessary  that  he  should  continue  his 
office  longer ;  and  he  consented  to  their  decision.  So  relates 
his  biographer  Aribo.2 

SEC.  331.  In  the  East,  Monotlielitism  is  renewed  and  again 
suppressed. 

Important  changes  took  place  in  the  East  in  7 16, described 
to  us  by  the  chief  witness,  the  deacon  and  librarian  Agatho  of 
Constantinople,  whom  we  already  know,  as  follows  : — "  By  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  rest  and  order  were  restored.  But 
Satan  did  not  long  endure  this.  The  Emperor  Justinian  u. 
was  murdered  at  Damaticum  in  Bithynia  by  his  rebellious 
army,  and  a  certain  Bardanes,  who  had  been  exiled  to  that 
place  because  of  usurpation,  was  proclaimed  Emperor  by  the 
rebels.  He  called  himself  Philip.  As  he  himself  said,  he 
was  by  his  parents,  and  still  more  by  the  infamous  Abbot 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  262  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1863  ;  Greith,  bishop  of  S. 
Gallen,  Gesch.  der  altirischen  Kirche,  1867,  S.  154. 

2  In  Mansi,  .I.e.  p.  267. 
v.— 17 


258  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

Stephen,  the  scholar  of  Macarius,  educated  in  Monothelitism. 
When  he  went  to  Constantinople,  before  his  entrance  into  the 
imperial  palace,  he  caused  the  picture  of  the  sixth  Council, 
which  hung  in  the  vestibule  of  the  palace,  between  the 
fourth  and  sixth  schola,1  to  be  taken  away ;  the  names  of 
Sergius,  Honorius,  and  the  rest  of  those  who  were  ex 
communicated  with  them  by  the  Synod,  had  to  be  replaced 
in  the  diptychs,  and  their  pictures  brought  back  again  to  their 
old  places.  The  copy  of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  Council, 
written  by  deacon  Agatho,  and  preserved  in  the  palace,  he 
caused  to  be  burnt,  and  persecuted  and  exiled  many  orthodox 
men,  especially  those  who  would  not  subscribe  the  tome 
which  he  had  drawn  up  for  the  rejection  of  the  sixth 
Synod.2  Deacon  Agatho  here  refers  to  the  Conciliabulum 
which  the  new  Emperor  held  in  the  year  712.  He  had 
deposed  the  orthodox  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  sent  him 
away  into  a  monastery,  and  given  his  see  to  John.  In  union 
with  this  man  and  some  other  bishops,  particularly  Germanus 
of  Cyzicus,  Andrew  of  Crete,  and  others,  Philippicus  procured 
that  the  spurious  Synod  mentioned  should  formally  reject  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Council,  and  sanction  the  Monothelite  doc 
trinal  system  in  a  special  tome.  Many  Oriental  bishops,  alas  ! 
were  so  weak  that  they  acceded  to  the  disgraceful  decree.3 

The  Emperor  Philippicus,  in  a  Sacra,  requested  from  Pope 
Constantine  his  consent  to  the  new  decrees,  but  the  Pope 
rejected  them  cum  apostolicce  sedis  consilio,  as  Anastasius  says 
(in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  179).  Perhaps  on  this  occasion  he  held  a 
Synod  at  Eome.  Anastasius  adds  :  As  the  Eoman  people,  full 
of  zeal  for  orthodoxy,  set  up  in  S.  Peter's  Church  a  picture 
representing  the  six  (Ecumenical  Councils,  on  the  other  hand, 
they  held  in  abhorrence  all  the  pictures  of  the  Emperor,  as  of 
a  heretic.  His  picture  was  also  removed  from  the  churches, 
and  his.  name  was  no  longer  read  from  the  diptychs. 

The  Monothelite  intermezzo  lasted  only  two  years,  for  on 

1  Scholee   palatinse  =  cohortes   varies    ad    Palatii  et    Prindpis    ciLstodiam 
destinatse.     Du  Cange,  thus  =  Halls  for  the  bodyguard. 

2  See  Agatho's  t-rrlXoyos  in  Combefis,  Novum  Auctuarium,  t.  ii.,  and  Mansi, 
t.  xii.  p.  190  ;  Hardouin.  t.  iii.  p.  1834  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  711,  4sqq.;  713,  1. 

3  Libellus  Synodicus  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  190  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.    1542  ; 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  712,  1-7  ;  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  ix.  S.  449-468. 


MONOTHELITISM   RENEWED   AND   SUPPRESSED   IN   THE   EAST.      259 

Whitsunday,  713,  Philip,  entirely  unprepared  for  it,  was 
deposed  by  a  military  rising,  and  his  eyes  put  out.  Next 
day,  however,  Philartemius,  who  called  himself  Anastasius,  a 
friend  of  orthodoxy,  was  proclaimed  Emperor.  The  Patriarch 
John  crowned  him.  At  this  solemnity  the  sixth  Synod 
was  again  solemnly  acclaimed  by  clergy  and  laity,  its 
picture  restored,  and  the  likenesses  of  Philip  and  Sergiu 
again  removed.  Moreover,  the  Patriarch  John  again  united 
with  Eome,  and  sent  to  the  Pope  the  synodal  letter  preserved 
in  the  em'Xcyyo?  of  Agathon,  in  which  he  represents  his  pre 
vious  behaviour  as  mere  economy,  i.e.  a  prudent  yielding, 
affirms  his  orthodoxy,  and  adds  that  the  Emperor  had  cer 
tainly  burned  the  copy  of  the  synodal  Acts  kept  in  the 
palace,  but  that  he  (John)  had  preserved  the  one  belonging 
to  the  patriarchal  archives. 

The  news  of  the  deposition  of  Philippicus  and  of  the 
elevation  of  Anastasius  caused  great  joy  in  Eome,  especially 
as  the  latter,  by  his  exarchs  (of  Eavenna),  sent  the  Pope  a 
Sacra,  in  which  he  expressed  his  adhesion  to  the  orthodox 
doctrine.1  When,  soon  afterwards,  the  Patriarch  John  died, 
A.D.  715,2  Germanus,  previously  bishop  of  Cyzicus,  who  had 
now  come  over  to  the  side  of  orthodoxy,  was  elected,  at  a 
Synod  at  Constantinople,  as  his  successor ;  and  did  not  fail, 
at  another  Constantinopolitan  Synod  (of  the  year  715  or  716), 
to  pronounce  the  doctrine  of  two  wills  and  energies,  and  to 
anathematise  Sergius,  Cyrus,  Pyrrhus,  Peter,  Paul,  and  John.3 

1  So  Anastasius,  in  Mansi.  t.  xii.  p.  180. 

2  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ami.  714,  1,  2.     He  was  not  deposed,  as  Zonaras  thought. 

3  Libellus  Synodicus ,  \n  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  255  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1542. 
The  name  of  John  is  wrongly  added  by  the  inaccurate  author  of  the  Libellus 
Synodicus.     He  also   mentions  erroneously  the  actual  Emperor  as  Apsimar, 
instead  of  Artemius  or  Anastasius.     Cf.  Walch,  I.e.  S.  471. 


BOOK    XVIII. 

THE  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES  AND  THE  SEVENTH 
(ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 


CHAPTER    I. 

HISTORY  OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES  UP  TO  THE 
CONVOCATION  OF  THE  SEVENTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD. 

SEC.  332.   Origin  of  the  Controversy  about  Jmages.1 

THE  Old  Testament  forbade  images  (Ex.  xx.  4),  because 
through  the  weakness  of  the  Jewish  people,  and  their 
strong  inclination  to  imitate  the  idolatrous  worships  of  the 
neighbouring  peoples,  they  had  brought  the  spiritual  and 
Monotheistic  worship  of  God  into  danger.  This  prohibition 
was,  like  all  ritual  ordinances,  no  longer  binding,  in  itself,  in 
the  'New  Testament.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  the  business  of 
Christianity  to  lay  hold  of  and  ennoble  the  whole  man  in  all 
his  higher  powers  ;  and  thus  not  only  all  the  other  noble 
arts  e.g.  music  and  poetry,  but  also  to  draw  painting  and 
sculpture  into  the  service  of  the  most  holy.  It  was,  however, 
natural  that  believers  who  came  out  of  Judaism,  who  hitherto 
had  cherished  so  well  -  founded  a  dislike  for  images,  should 
bring  over  with  them  into  the  new  dispensation  the  same, 
and  that  they  should  maintain  this  feeling  so  long — and 
properly — as  they  saw  themselves  surrounded  and  threatened 
by  heathens  who  worshipped  images.  But  the  teacher's  con- 

1  Of.  the  author's  treatise,  Ueber  das  erste  Lustrum  dcs  Bilderstreits,  in  the 
Tiibmgen  Tkeolog.  Quartalschrift,  1857,  Heft  iv. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT   IMAGES.  261 

sideration  for  the  newly  converted  heathen  forbade  also  the 
early  Church  to  set  up  religious  pictures,  in  order  to  remove 
possible  temptations  to  fall  back  into  paganism.  Moreover, 
the  old  Church,  for  the  sake  of  its  own  honour,  had  to  refrain 
from  pictures,  especially  from  representations  of  our  Lord,  so 
that  it  might  not  be  regarded  by  those  who  were  without  as 
only  a  new  kind  of  heathenism  ;  and,  besides,  the  old  believers 
found,  in  their  opinion  of  the  bodily  form  of  Christ,  no  induce 
ment  to  the  making  of  images  of  Christ.  The  oppressed  Church 
represented  to  herself  her  Master  only  in  the  form  of  a  ser 
vant,  despised  and  having  no  comeliness,  as  Isaiah  (liii.  2,  3) 
describes  the  Servant  of  God.1  But  the  natural  impulse  to 
fix  and  support  the  memory  of  the  Lord,  and  the  thankful 
remembrance  of  the  salvation  procured  by  Him  by  means  of 
pictorial  forms,  called  out  substitutes  and  symbols  instead  of 
actual  pictures,  especially  as  those  were  partially  allowed  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Thus  arose  the  use  of  the  symbolical  pic 
tures  of  the  Dove,  the  Fish,  the  Lyre,  the  Anchor  [the  Lamb]  ; 
specially  frequent  and  favourite  was  the  Cross,  on  account  of 
which  Christians  were  often  called  cross-worshippers  (religiosi 
crucis,  Tertull.  Apolog.  c.  16).  A  decided  step  forwards  to 
greater  liberty  is  shown  in  the  human  symbolical  figure 
of  the  Good  Shepherd,  which,  according  to  Tertullian  (De 
Pudicit.  c.  7),  was  often  found  in  the  second  century  upon 
the  chalices.  Such  representations,  however,  were  mostly 
found  in  private  use,  and  their  use  in  ecclesiastical  places 
was  greatly  disapproved  and  forbidden.  With  the  ortho 
dox,  pictures  as  objects  of  veneration2  were  not  found  so 
early  as  with  heretics,  particularly  with  the  Carpocratians 

1  Justin  M.  Dialog,  c.   Tryph.  cc.  14,  49,  85,  100,  110,  ed.  Otto  ;  Tertull. 
Decarne  Christi,  c.  9  ;  Adv.  Judseos,  c.  14  ;  Clemens  Alex.  Psedagog.  lib.  iii.  1; 
Stromat.  lib.  ii.  5,  p.  440  ;  lib.  iii.  17,  p.  559  ;  lib.  vi.  17,  p.  818,  ed.  Pott; 
Origen,  c.  Celsum,  lib.  vi.  75.     Celsus,  among  other  things,  had  made   this 
representation  of  the   form    of  the   Lord   a  reproach  to  the  Christians.     Cf. 
Miinter,  Sinnbilder  u.   Kunstvorstcllungen  der  alien   Christen,  Altona   1825, 
Heft  ii. ;  Griineisen,   Ueber  die  Ursachen  dcs  Kunsthasscs  in  den  ersten  drci 
Jahrhundertcn,  Kunstblatt,  1831,  No.  29  ;  and  the  author's  article  on  "Pictures 
of  Christ"  in  the  Kirchenlexicon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte,  s.v.  Christusbilder.     A 
beautiful  essay  on  the  use  of  pictures  in  the  ancient  Church  is  given  in  Natalis 
Alexander,  Hist.  Eccles.  Sec.  viii.  Diss.  vi.  t.  vi.  p.  91  sqq.,  ed.  Venet.  1778. 

2  Cf.  Kirchenlexicon,  s.v.  Christusbilder. 


262  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

and  with  eclectic  heathens,  like  the  Emperor  Alexander 
Severus.  The  celebrated  Synod  of  Elvira,  A.D.  306,  spoke  out 
strongly  and  severely  against  the  use  of  pictures  in  the 
churches.1  But  held  at  the  entrance  of  the  time  of  Con- 
stantine,  it  stands  at  the  boundary  of  two  periods.  In  the 
new  time  we  find,  as  in  other  things,  so  also  an  important 
change  in  regard  to  Christian  art.  Jewish  Christianity  had 
come  to  an  end,  and  its  speciality  and  narrowness  were 
extinguished.  On  the  other  side,  even  with  heathens,  any 
great  relapse  was  no  longer  seriously  to  be  feared  ;  and  thus 
the  two  principal  reasons,  which  previously  spoke  against 
pictures,  no  longer  existed.  Thus  there  could  no  longer  arise 
an  evil  report  against  the  Church  if  she  made  use  of  pictures 
for  the  embellishment  of  her  worship,  for  her  Monotheistic 
character  and  her  spiritual  worship  were  now  placed  beyond 
all  doubt.  Thus  it  happened  that  in  the  victorious  Church 
there  came  naturally  another  representation  of  the  bodily 
form  of  the  Lord  than  that  which  was  found  in  the  oppressed 
Church.  Christ  was  from  this  time  regarded  as  the  ideal 
of  human  beauty,  e.g.,  by  Chrysostom  (Opp.  t.  v.  p.  162,  ed. 
Montf.)  and  Jerome  (Opp.  t.  ii.  p.  684,  ed.  BB.),  and  this 
representation  attached  itself  to  Psalm  xliv.  3  [xlv.  2].  From 
this  time  very  numerous  representations  of  Christ,  and  also 
of  the  apostles  and  martyrs,  in  the  form  of  pictures,  mosaics, 
and  statues,  were  fashioned,  and,  partly  by  Constantine  himself, 
were  put  up  in  churches  and  in  public  places. 

Where  the  ancient  Fathers  speak  of  the  aim  of  these 
pictures,  they  find  it  in  the  instruction  and  edification  of  the 
faithful,  and  in  the  appropriate  decoration  of  churches.  Thus 
writes  Pope  Gregory  the  Great  to  Bishop  Serenus  of  Mar 
seilles,  who,  in  imprudent  zeal,  cast  the  pictures  out  of  the 
Church  :  "  You  ought  not  to  have  broken  what  was  put  up  in 
the  churches,  not  for  adoration,  but  merely  for  the  promotion 
of  reverence.  It  is  one  thing  to  worship  an  image,  and 
another  to  learn  from  the  history  represented  in  the  image 
what  we  ought  to  worship.  For  that  which  the  Scripture  is 
for  those  who  can  read,  that  a  picture  is  for  those  who  are 
incapable  of  reading  ;  for  in  this  also  the  uneducated  see  in 
1  See  vol.  i.  p.  151,  c.  36. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  263 

what  way  they  have  to  walk.  In  it  they  read  who  are  not 
acquainted  with  the  Scriptures  "  (lib.  ix.  Ep.  9).  Still  earlier, 
S.  Basil,  in  his  eulogy  of  the  martyr  Barlaam,  called,  in 
oratorical  strains,  upon  the  Christian  painters  to  represent 
the  glory  of  this  great  saint,  as  they  could  show  this  better 
in  colours  than  he  could  in  words.  He  would  rejoice  if  he 
were  surpassed  by  them,  and  if  painting  here  triumphed  over 
eloquence.1 

The  customary  use  of  pictures,  since  Constantine  the 
Great,  in  the  whole  Church,  with  the  Greeks  even  more  than 
with  the  Latins,  Leo  the  Isaurian,  in  the  eighth  century, 
determined  again  to  root  out.  His  early  history  and  his 
career  are  very  differently  related  by  the  ancients.  Accord 
ing  to  some,  he  was  a  poor  workman  from  Isauria  in  Lesser 
Asia,  who  carried  his  few  wares  with  him  on  an  ass,  and 
subsequently  entered  the  imperial  army  as  a  common  soldier, 
and  rose  in  it,  on  account  of  his  bodily  strength  and  dex 
terity,  from  step  to  step.  According  to  Theophanes,2  on  the 
other  hand,  he  sprang  from  Germanicia,  on  the  border  of 
Isauria,  was  forced,  in  the  reign  of  Justinian  n.,  to  remove 
to  Mesembria  in  Thrace  (why,  is  not  known),  once  made 
this  Emperor  a  present  of  500  sheep,  when  he  and  his 
army  were  in  some  need,  and  was  for  that  reason  made 
imperial  Spatharius ; 3  and  afterwards,  under  Anastasius  II., 
became  general  of  the  army  in  Asia  Minor.  When  the 
latter  Emperor,  in  consequence  of  a  mutiny,  A.D.  716,  re 
signed  and  retired  into  a  convent,  in  order  to  give  place  to 
the  kindly  but  weak  Theodosius,  whom  the  insurgents  had 
proclaimed  Emperor,  Leo  refused  obedience  to  the  latter,  beat 
him,  and  compelled  him  also  to  retire  into  a  convent,  and 
now  ascended  the  throne  as  the  founder  of  a  new  dynasty.4 

1  Basilii  Opp.  ed.  Gamier,  t.  ii.  p.  141.      Cf.  Marr,  Der  Hilderstreit,  Trier 
1839,  S.  6,  and  his  article  on  Bilder  in  Wetzer  and  Welte's  Kirchenlexicon,  s.v. 

2  Theophanes,  Chronogr.  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  600. 

3  Spatharius,  from  spatha  =  sword,   an   officer  who  bears  the    Emperor's 
sword,  almost  =  adjutant.     Cf.  Du  Cange,  Gloss,  s.v.  Spatharius. 

4  Baronius,_ad  ann.  716,  1-3,  removes  the  year  of  the  accession   of  Leo 
to  716  ;    Theophanes,    on   the   contrary,  almost   a  contemporary,  states   (I.e. 
p.  635)  that  Leo  ascended  the  throne  on  March  25  of  the  15th  Induction.     This 
ran  from  September  1,  716,  to  September  1,  717;  and  therefore  the  25th  of 


264  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Absolutely  without  education,  rough  in  manner,  a  military 
upstart,  he  found  in  himself  no  understanding  of  art,  and 
no  aesthetic  feeling  that  could  have  restrained  him  from 
Vandalism.  Undoubtedly  he  was  in  all  seriousness  of  the 
opinion  that  the  veneration  of  images  was  a  relapse  into 
heathenism,  and  that  the  Old  Testament  prohibition  of  them 
was  still  in  full  force.  How  he  came  to  this  view,  however, 
whether  it  arose  in  himself  or  was  infused  into  him  from 
without,  must  remain  undecided,  on  account  of  the  partly 
incomplete,  partly  improbable  statements  of  the  authorities. 
It  is  quite  certain,  however,  that  the  forcible  carrying 
through  of  his  plans,  even  in  religious  matters,  without  re 
gard  to  the  liberty  of  conscience,  lay  quite  as  much  in  the 
character  of  Leo  as  in  the  practice  of  the  Byzantine 
Emperors.  This  he  showed  as  early  as  the  sixth  year  of 
his  reign,  when  he  compelled  the  Jews  and  Montanists  -to 
receive  baptism.  The  former  submitted  in  appearance,  but 
the  Montanists  themselves  set  fire  to  the  house  in  which  they 
were  assembled,  and  rather  died  in  the  flames  than  comply 
with  the  command.  Thus  relates  the  chronographer  Theo- 
phanes  (t  818),  who  from  here  forms  one  of  our  chief  sources, 
and,  in  the  later  phase  of  iconoclasm,  was  a  confessor  and 
almost  a  martyr  for  images.1  All  the  others  who  have  left 
us  information  respecting  the  controversy  about  images  drew 
from  Theophanes :  Cedrenus  (cent,  xi.),  Zonares  (cent,  xii.), 
Constantine  Manasses  (cent,  xii.),  and  Michael  Glycas  (cent, 
xv.)  ; 2  also  the  Latins.  Anastasius  (cent,  ix.),  in  his  Historia 
ficclesiastica,  and  the  unknown  author  of  the  Historia  Miscella 
commonly  ascribed  to  Paul  the  deacon,  for  the  most  part 
only  translated  faithfully  the  words  of  Theophanes.3  On 

March,  which  falls  in  it,  belongs  to  717.  Pagi  agreed  with  him,  ad  ann. 
716,  1-3.  We  will  show  below,  at  the  close  of  this  paragraph,  that  Leo  the 
Isaurian  entered  upon  the  government  in  the  year  716. 

1  Theophanes,     Chronogr.     ed.    Bonn    1839    (in     the     Collection    of    the 
Byzantines),  t.  i.  p.  617.     Of  his  peculiar  chronology  we  spoke  before,  p.  3, 
note  2. 

2  Their  works  are  included  in  the  Bonn  (and  also  in  the  Paris  and  Venice) 
edition  of  the  Byzantines. 

3  The  Hist.  Eccles.  of  Anastasius  is  one  of  the  three  Byzantines  :  Nicephorus 
(patriarch),  George  Syncellus,  and  Theophanes,  Chronographia  Tripartita,  put 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  265 

the  other  hand,  Paul  the  deacon,  in  his  treatise,  De  Gestis 
Lowtibardorum,  and  Anastasius,  in  his  biographies  of  the  Popes,1 
have  given  some  important  information  of  their  own.  To 
authorities  of  the  first  rank  John  Damascene  would  be 
long,  who  at  the  very  beginning  undertook  the  defence  of 
the  veneration  of  images  against  the  assailants ;  but  his 
writings  unfortunately  contain  extremely  little  that  is  his 
torical.  Somewhat  more  of  this  we  find  in  the  biography 
of  the  Abbot  S.  Stephen,  of  the  ninth  century,  who  was 
martyred  under  Leo's  son,  Con stan tine  Copronymus,  on  ac 
count  of  the  images,2  as  well  as  the  Patriarch  Nicephorus, 
who,  like  his  contemporary  Theophanes,  in  the  second  half 
of  the  storm  about  images,  was  compelled  to  go  into  exile 
in  consequence  of  his  resisting  the  storm.3  Some  other  less 
important  authorities  we  shall  mention  as  occasion  offers  ; 
but  it  is  superfluous  to  mention  that  the  letters  of  Popes 
and  other  authorities  which  belong  to  this  period,  and  the 
Acts  of  the  various  Synods,  are  of  highest  importance  for 
the  history  of  the  controversy  about  images.  The  later 
literature  on  the  subject  is  uncommonly  drawn  out,  and 
from  the  confessional  point  of  view  a  good  deal  coloured. 
The  relationship  of  the  reformers  to  the  old  iconoclasts  lay 
so  near  as  to  change  the  historical  theme  into  a  polemical 
one,  and  to  lead  to  attacks  against  the  Catholic  Church. 
The  subject  has  been  handled,  among  Protestants,  especially 
by  Goldart,  in  his  collection  of  Imperialia  decreta  de  cultu 

together  and  translated,  the  best  edition  by  Bekker  in  the  Bonn  Collection  of 
Byzantines,  t.  ii.  of  the  Chronography  of  Theophanes.  On  the  Historia  Mis- 
cella,  which  has  been  falsely  ascribed  to  the  deacon  Paul,  cf.  Bahr,  Die  christ- 
lichen  Dichter  u.  Geschichtschreiber  Horns,  i.  S.  152  ff.  Of  Paul  the  deacon 
we  use  the  edition  of  the  Abbe  Migne,  Paris  1850. 

1  We  mention,  for  brevity's  sake,  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  as  author  of 
the  Vii&  Pontificum,  although  he  probably  wrote  only  the  smallest  part  of  it 
himself ;  and  certainly  the  passages  which  we  have  to  use  in  the  history  of  the 
controversy  about  images  are  older  than  Anastasius. 

2  Published  in  Greek  and  Latin  by  Montfaucon  in  the  Analecta  Grseca, 
Paris  1688.      An  old  Latin  translation  of  this  biography,  by  Simeon  Meta- 
phrastes,  which  has  a  good  deal  peculiar  to  itself,  was  earlier  known,  and  was 
used  already  by  Baronius,  but  erroneously  ascribed  to  John  Damascene,  ad  ann. 
726,  4. 

3  Nicephorus  Constantinop.  De  rebus  post   Mauritium  gcstis,  in  the  Bonn 
edition  of  the  Byzantines,  1837. 


266  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

imaginum,  1608;  Dallseus  [Daille],  De  imaginibus,  1612; 
Friedrich  Spanheim  junior,  in  his  Eestituta  Historic  imaginum, 
1686  ;  Bower,  in  History  of  the  Popes,  1757,  vol.  iv. ;  Walch, 
in  his  Ketzerliistorie,  1782,  Bd.  x. ;  and  Friedrich  Christoph 
Schlosser  (of  Heidelberg),  in  his  history  of  iconoclastic  Em 
perors,  Frankfort  1812.1  On  the  Catholic  side  we  name, 
besides  Baronius,  Pagi,  Natalis  Alexander,  specially  Maim- 
bourg,  S.  J.,  Histoire  de  I'heresie  des  iconoclastes,  Paris  1683, 
2  vols.  (not  quite  trustworthy) ;  Assemani,  Historia  Italic- 
orum  Scriptorum,  t.  iii. ;  and  Marr,  Der  Bilderstreit  der 
byzantinischen  Kaiser,  Trier  1839.  Almost  every  one  of  the 
scholars  named  has  formed  a  theory  of  his  own  on  the 
chronology  of  the  first  lustrum  of  the  controversies  on 
images.  This  was  occasioned  by  the  uncertainty  and  in- 
definiteness  in  the  information  given  by  the  authorities.  A 
fresh  examination  of  these  led  us  to  several  new  results, 
which  we  will  communicate  in  the  proper  place. 

As  the  attack  of  the  Emperor  Leo  on  the  images  was 
preceded  by  one  quite  similar,  which  the  Caliph  Jezid  n., 
only  three  years  before,  attempted  to  make  in  the  Christian 
provinces  ruled  by  him,  it  was  quite  natural  that  the 
Emperor's  contemporaries  should  charge  him  with  having 
imitated  the  Mahometan,  and  accuse  him  of  Saracen  lean 
ings.  So  particularly,  Theophanes  (I.e.  pp.  618,  623),  who 
mentions  the  renegade  Beser  and  Bishop  Cons  tan  tine  of 
Nacolia  (in  Phrygia)  as  the  principal  assistants  of  the 
Emperor  in  this  affair.2  This  Constantine,  in  particular,  he 
calls  an  ignorant  man,  full  of  all  uncleanness ;  of  Beser, 
however,  he  relates  that  he,  from  birth  a  Christian,  had 
denied  Christ  among  the  Arabs,3  and  had  come  into  great 
favour  with  the  Emperor  Leo.  He  had  probably  returned 
to  Christianity. 

Further   information   respecting  Constantine   of    Nacolia 

1  A  work  as  offensive  through  insipid  argument  as  by  prejudiced  perversion 
of  history. 

2  Schlosser,  in  his  Geschichte  der  Bilderstarmenden  Kaiser,   S.  161,  calls 
him  wrongly  Theophilus  of  Nacolia,  copying  a  mistake  of  Baronius. 

3  The  variations  of  the  Greek  text  leave  it  undecided  whether  Beser  was  by 
birth  a  Syrian,  or  had  come  into  Syria  as  a  prisoner  among  the  Saracens.     Cf. 
the  notes  of  P.  Goar  to  Theophanes,  t.  ii.  p.  636  of  the  Bonn  edition. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  267 

we  receive  from  two  letters  of  Germanus,  then  patriarch  of 
Constantinople.1  One  of  them  is  addressed  to  Bishop  Con- 
stantine  himself,  the  other  to  his  metropolitan,  John  of 
Synnada.  From  the  latter  it  appears  that  Constantine  had 
personally  come  to  Constantinople,  and  this  gave  occasion 
for  his  metropolitan  himself  to  write  to  the  patriarch,  and 
to  make  him  acquainted  with  his  views  in  opposition  to 
images.  In  consequence  of  this,  Germanus  had  a  conversa 
tion  with  Bishop  Constantine  on  the  subject.  The  latter 
appealed  to  the  Old  Testament,  which  forbade  the  images ; 
but  the  patriarch  explained  the  true  state  of  the  matter, 
and  Constantine  at  last  fell  in  with  his  view,  with  the 
assurance  that  henceforth  he  would  confess  the  like,  and 
give  offence  to  no  one.  We  learn  this  distinctly  from  the 
letter  already  mentioned  of  the  patriarch  to  the  archbishop 
of  Synnada,2  which  he  put  into  the  hands  of  Bishop  Con 
stantine  to  take  care  of,  when  he  returned  to  his  home. 
Constantine,  however,  disappointed  this  confidence,  detained 
the  letter,  and  kept  at  a  distance  from  his  metropolitan, 
pretending  fear  of  being  persecuted  by  him.  The  patriarch 
therefore  issued  a  powerful  letter  to  Constantine  himself, 
and  pronounced  him  excommunicated  until  he  should  deliver 
that  letter.3 

We  do  not  doubt  that  the  presence  of  Constantine  in 
Constantinople  belongs  to  the  preliminary  history  of  the 
image  trouble.  Bishop  Constantine  had,  as  we  learn  from 
these  letters,  first  begun,  in  his  own  country,  the  battle 
against  the  images,  and  was  thereupon  driven  into  opposition 
on  the  part  of  the  metropolitan  and  the  comprovincial 
bishops.  He  went  then  to  Constantinople,  and  sought  the 
protection  of  his  higher  ecclesiastical  superior,  the  patriarch, 
whilst  in  appearance  he  agreed  with  the  explanation  which 
he  had  given.  That  he  was  not  serious  in  this  we  may 
infer  from  his  subsequent  behaviour.  The  Patriarch  Ger- 

1  Germanus,    formerly  archbishop   of    Cyzicus,    had,   under  the    Emperor 
Philip  Bardanes,  held  with  the  opponents  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
but  speedily  was  converted.     See  above,  p.  259. 

2  Preserved  in  the  Acts  of  the  fourth  session  of  Nicaea  II.,  in  Mansi,  t.  xiii. 
p.  99  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  239  sqq. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  106;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  243. 


268  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

maims,  however,  does  not  in  the  least  indicate  that  the 
Emperor  had  then  already  taken  steps  against  the  pictures, 
whether  it  was  that  nothing  had  yet  actually  taken  place 
on  the  part  of  the  Emperor  in  this  direction,  or  that  the 
patriarch  ignored  it  from  prudence.  I  should  prefer  the 
previous  supposition ;  for  the  ignoring  of  it  could  have  been 
possible  only  if  at  least  so  far  nothing  that  was  im 
portant  or  that  excited  notice  had  been  undertaken  by  the 
Emperor. 

Besides  Beser  and  Constantine  of  Nacolia,  Bishop  Thomas 
of  Claudiopolis *  and  Archbishop  Theodosius  of  Ephesus,  the 
son  of  the  former  Emperor  Apsimar  or  Tiberius  IL,  also  be 
longed  to  those  who  shared  the  opinion  of  the  Emperor.  We 
hear  of  the  first  of  these  from  the  letter  of  the  Patriarch 
Germanus,  who  explained  to  him  at  great  length  the  Church 
view  in  regard  to  the  veneration  of  images,  and  complained 
that  he  had  been  compelled  to  hear  much  that  was  so  un 
favourable,  or  even  incredible,  of  Bishop  Thomas.2  The 
archbishop  of  Ephesus  named,  however,  is  pointed  out  by 
Pope  Gregory  n.  as  the  secret  counsellor  of  Leo.3 

Another  ancient  witness  places  Bishop  Constantine  of 
Nacolia  in  relation  with  the  Caliph  Jezid.  This  is  the 
monk  John,  representative  of  the  Oriental  patriarchate,  who 
read,  in  the  fifth  session  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Council, 
a  short  essay,  in  which  he  states :  "  After  Omar's  death,  Ezid, 
a  frivolous  and  stupid  man,  became  chief  of  the  Arabs.  There 
lived  at  Tiberias  a  leader  of  the  Jews,  a  magician,  a  sooth 
sayer,  and  a  servant  of  demons,  named  Tessaracontapechys 
( =  40  ells  long ;  according  to  other  MSS.,  his  name  was 
Sarantatechos),  who  gained  the  favour  of  Ezid,  and  told  him : 
You  will  live  long,  and  reign  for  thirty  years  more  ...  if 
you  immediately  destroy  all  the  images,  pictures,  and  mosaics, 
all  the  pictures  on  walls,  vessels,  and  cloths,  which  are  found 
in  the  Christian  churches  of  your  kingdom ;  and  so  also  all 
other  pictures,  even  those  which  are  not  religious,  which 

1  There  were  several  cities  of  tins  name  in  Asia  Minor,  thus,  e.g.,  a  bishopric 
of  Claudiopolis  in  Isauria  and  a  metropolitan  in  Paphlagonia. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  107  sqq.  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  246  sqq. 

3  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  968  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  10. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  269 

here  and  there  in  the  towns  are  put  up  for  ornament.  The 
latter  he  mentioned  in  order  to  remove  the  suspicion  that 
he  was  speaking  only  out  of  hatred  against  the  Christians. 
The  tyrant  lent  him  a  hearing,  destroyed  the  pictures,  and 
robbed  the  Church  of  all  ornament,  even  before  this  evil 
came  into  our  neighbourhood.  As  the  Christians  fled,  and 
would  not  themselves  destroy  the  holy  images,  the  emirs  who 
were  charged  with  the  business  made  use  of  the  Jews  and 
common  Arabs  for  the  purpose.  The  venerable  pictures 
were  burnt,  the  walls  of  the  churches  smeared  or  scratched. 
When  the  pseudo-bishop  of  Nacolia  and  his  friends  heard 
this,  they  imitated  the  wickedness  of  the  Jews  'and  Arabs, 
and  caused  great  disfigurement  of  the  churches.  Ezid, 
however,  died  after  2J  years,  and  the  images  were  restored 
again  in  his  kingdom.  His  successor,  Ulid  (Walid),  even 
ordered  the  Jewish  leader  to  be  executed,  because  he  had 
brought  about  the  death  of  his  father  (as  a  judgment  of  God)."  l 
According  to  this,  the  bishop  of  Nacolia,  who  moreover 
did  not  stand  alone,  but  must  have  had  associates  (perhaps 
also  in  the  episcopate),  appears  as  intermediary  between 
Jezid  and  the  Emperor  Leo,  as  the  man  who  induced  the 
Emperor  to  become  successor  of  the  Caliph  in  the  assault  on 
the  images.  Another  intermediary,  however,  has  been  intro 
duced  by  the  later  Greek  historians,  and,  according  to  their 
statement,  the  same  Jews  who  misled  Jezid  won  over  the 
Emperor  to  their  side.  Fleeing,  after  the  Caliph's  death,  they 
came  to  the  borders  of  Isauria,  and  lighted  upon  a  young  man 
of  distinguished  form  who  lived  by  merchandise.  They 
seated  themselves  by  him,  prophesied  to  him  the  imperial 
throne,  and  took  an  oath  of  him  that,  in  case  of  his  elevation, 
he  would  everywhere  remove  the  pictures  of  Christ  and  Mary.2 
Leo  promised  it ;  some  time  afterwards  entered  the  army, 
became  under  Justinian  n.  Spatharius,  and  finally  even 
Emperor.  Then  came  the  Jews,  reminded  him  of  his 

1  Mansi,  t.   xiii.   p.    198  ;  Hardouin,  t.   iv.  319.— Sclilosser,  I.e.   S.  162  f. 
says  :  "  The  same  Caliph  Jezid  also  forbade  wine  to  his  Christian  subjects,  and 
lays  importance  on  this.     But  it  was  not  Jezid,  but  his  predecessor  Omar  who 
did  this,  as  Theophanes  testifies"  (I.e.  p.  614). 

2  Maimbourg  adorns,  here  and  elsewhere,  the  subject  in  his  own  way  without 
justification  from  the  authorities. 


270  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

promise,  and  in  the  tenth  year  of  his  reign  Leo  attacked 
the  images. 

Thus  related,  with  several  variations  in  detail,  but  in 
fundamental  agreement,  Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  Michael  Glycas, 
Constantine  Manasses,  and  two  anonymous  writers,  the  authors 
of  the  Oratio  adv.  Constantinum  Cabalinum,  and  of  the  Epistola 
ad  Theopliilum.  The  time  of  the  two  latter  cannot  now  be 
determined,  probably  they  lived  some  centuries  after  Leo  the 
Isaurian,1  and  the  whole  narrative  bears  so  clearly  the 
character  of  a  later  story,  that  it  would  be  superfluous,  with 
Bower  (Hist,  of  the  Popes,  vol.  iv.)  and  Walch  (I.e.  S.  205  ff.), 
to  collect  'all  kinds  of  grounds  of  suspicion  against  it.  To 
mention  only  one,  the  Jews  would  have  bargained  with  Leo 
for  something  more  useful  to  themselves  than  the  destruction 
of  images ;  and  how  little  the  Emperor  was  grateful  or  well- 
disposed  to  the  Jews,  is  shown  by  the  circumstance  that,  as 
we  have  already  seen  (p.  264),  he  forcibly  compelled  them  to 
receive  baptism.  Perhaps,  however,  the  experience  which  he 
gained  later  on  may  have  brought  him  to  the  reflection,  that 
the  conversion  of  the  Jews,  which  he  so  greatly  desired,  would 
be  made  much  easier  by  the  removal  of  the  images.  Many 
suppose  that,  in  this  way,  he  endeavoured  to  make  his 
Saracen  neighbours  more  favourable,  and  to  pave  their 
way  into  the  Church.2 

If  we  add  to  these  political  grounds  the  narrow  view 
of  Leo  already  noticed,  that  all  veneration  of  images  was 
idolatrous,  and  also  the  insinuations  of  Beser,  Constantine 
of  Nacolia,  and  others,  the  reasons  for  the  rising  against 
images  lie  before  our  eyes. — That  this  was  connected  with 
the  Monothelite  controversies,  and  dated  from  the  fact  that 
the  Emperor  Philip  Bardanes  caused  to  be  removed  a  picture 
of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  (see  p.  257),  is  a  mere 
capricious  assertion  of  some  older  Protestants,  particularly 
Daille  and  Spanheim, 

1  The  two  works  in  question   were   formerly,    by  mistake,  attributed   to 
S.    John  of  Damascus,  and  are  found  among  his  works,  ed.  Le  Quien,  t.   i. 
p.  625  sqq.,  and  p.  633  sqq.     Of.  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  151-155. 

2  Cf.  Joh.  v.  Miiller,  Allg.  Gesch.  Bd.  xiii.  K.  x. ;  Marr,  Der  Bildcrstreit, 
S.  15  f.;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  217. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT  IMAGES.  27 1 

According  to  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  621),  whom  Anastasius 
(Hist.  Eccles.)  and  Paul  the  deacon  (Hist.  Miscell.  lib.  xxi.) 
followed,  Leo  began  in  the  ninth  year  of  his  reign  (A.D.  725) 
\6yov  TTOieiaOai,  of  the  taking  away  of  the  sacred  pictures,  i.e. 
not  merely  in  general  to  speak,  to  publish  an  ordinance,  a 
command ;  for  a  few  lines  lower  down  Theophanes  says :  The 
Pope  wrote  on  this  subject  to  the  Emperor,  firj  Sew  /3acri\ea 
ire  pi  irLcrrew^  \oyov  TroielaOai.  Pope  Gregory  II.,  on  the  con 
trary  (Epist.  1  ad  Leonem),  as  well  as  Cedrenus  and  Zonaras, 
remove  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  about  images  into  the 
Emperor's  tenth  year  ;  and  this  has  also  the  greatest  pro 
bability.  So  it  comes  that  in  this  year,  726,  that  convulsion 
of  nature  took  place  which,  according  to  the  unanimous 
testimony  of  the  ancients,  brought  the  plan  of  the  Emperor 
to  maturity.  Between  the  islands  of  the  Cyclades  group, 
Thera  and  Therasia  (north-east  from  Crete),  a  volcano  arose 
suddenly  under  the  sea,  which  for  several  days  vomited  fire 
and  stones  with  such  violence,  that  the  coasts  of  Asia  Minor, 
and  even  those  of  Lesbos,  Abydos,  and  Macedonia,  were 
covered  with  it.  There  immediately  arose  a  new  island  which 
united  with  the  island  of  Hiera.  The  Emperor  and  his  asso 
ciate  Beser  professed  to  see  in  this  a  judgment  of  God  on 
account  of  the  veneration  of  images,  and  now  set  to  work.1 

That  the  Ernperor  at  his  first  steps  against  the  images 
either  did  not  consult  Germanus,  the  patriarch  of  Con 
stantinople,  at  all,  or  did  not  follow  his  counsel,  is  clear 
from  the  first  letter  of  Gregory  n.  to  Leo,  in  which  he 
reproaches  him  that  Sapientes  non  percontatus  es.2  In  opposi 
tion  to  this,  the  biography  of  Abbot  Stephen,  martyred  under 
Constantine  Copronymus  on  account  of  the  images,  speaks  of 
an  assembly  which  the  Emperor  held,  and  in  which  he  de 
clared  :  "  As  the  making  of  images  is  an  idolatrous  art,  so 
may  they  not  be  venerated  (Trpoo-fcwelcrOai)"  The  old  Latin 
translation  departs  from  the  Greek  original  in  the  rendering 
of  this :  "  Accita  et  coacta  senatorum  classe  absurdum  illud  et 
impium  evomuit  (Leo) :  imaginum  picturas  formam  quam- 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  622  ;  Nicephorus,  DC  rebus  post  Mauritium  gcstis,  in 
the  Bonn  ed.  of  the  Byzantines,  1837,  p.  64,  and  all  later  editions. 
3  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  960  ;  Hardonin,  t.  iv.  p.  5. 


272  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

dam  idolorum  retinere,  neque  iis  cultum  esse  adhibendum." 1 
In  accordance  with  this,  Schlosser  (I.e.  p.  166)  has  assumed 
that  the  Emperor  Leo  now  held  a  consultative  assembly  on 
account  of  the  images,  but  I  fear  mistakenly,  for  Pope 
Gregory  n.  knows  nothing  of  any  such  assembly  in  the 
year  726,  nor  Theophanes  or  the  Patriarch  Nicephorus,  nor 
the  oldest  authorities  generally ;  and  the  biographer  of 
Stephen  had,  in  his  expressions,  nothing  else  in  view  but 
that  Silentium  (assembly  of  clergy  and  secular  grandees) 
which  first  took  place  on  the  subject  of  the  images  in  the 
year  730,  as  Theophanes  and  others  testify. 

Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  Constantine  Manasses,  and  Glycas 
relate  that  the  Emperor  summoned  the  twelve  professors  who 
were  appointed  over  the  great  library  (of  36,000  volumes)  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  Church  of  S.  Sophia,  with  their 
director,  and  endeavoured  to  gain  them  over  to  his  views. 
As  this  did  not  succeed,  he  caused  the  library  to  be  burnt, 
together  with  the  thirteen  scholars  named  shut  up  within  it. 
As  this  is  not  mentioned  either  by  Gregory  11.  or  by 
Theophanes  or  Nicephorus,  or  indeed  any  of  the  ancients, 
who  yet  fully  describe  Leo's  cruelty,  this  story  must  be 
removed  into  the  realm  of  fable.  Schlosser  thinks  (S.  163  f.) 
so  much  is  clear,  that  the  Emperor  spoke  with  those  scholars, 
but  did  not  gain  them  over ;  and  then  that  the  burning  of  the 
library,  which  took  place  six  years  later,  was  connected  with 
this.  But  the  fact  of  this  burning  is  by  no  means  sufficiently 
attested,  and  indeed  rests  on  a  confusion  with  the  subsequent 
burning  of  that  library  which  took  place  A.D.  780,  under  the 
Emperor  Zeno.  In  particular,  the  celebrated  copy  of  the 
Iliad  and  Odyssey,  written  upon  a  dragon's  skin,  according  to 
the  testimony  of  Suidas,  was  burnt  under  Zeno,  and  not,  as 
Constantine  Manasses  asserts,  under  Leo.  Occasion  for  the 
fable  of  the  burning,  however,  was  perhaps  given  by  the 
circumstance  that  Theophanes  (I.e.)  tells  us  that  Leo 
specially  persecuted  the  learned,  so  that  the  schools  had 
been  destroyed. 

That  the  Emperor  Leo  published  an  ordinance,  an  edict 
against  images  (A.D.  726),  is  perfectly  clear  from  the  words  of 

1  In  Baron,  ad  ami.  726,  4. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  273 

Theophanes  quoted  above  (p.  271),  and  is  by  no  one  denied. 
But  it  is  more  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  contents  of  this  first 
edict.  We  shall  discover  hereafter  that  several  of  its 
principal  passages  are  preserved  in  the  letter  of  Gregory  u. 
to  Leo  ;  but  it  was  just  here  that  they  were  not  sought, 
because  this  letter  was  assigned  to  a  later  time.  People 
founded  rather  upon  the  old  Latin  translation  of  the 
biography  of  Abbot  Stephen,  according  to  which  the  Em 
peror,  in  order  to  please  the  people,  declared :  "  He  would 
not  destroy  the  pictures,  but  only  hang  them  higher,  so  that 
people  might  no  longer  touch  them  with  their  mouths " ; l 
and  they  inferred  from  this,  that  the  first  edict  merely 
forbade  the  kissing  and  veneration  of  images,  and  that  it  was 
the  second,  in  730,  which  first  ordered  their  destruction.2 
But,  apart  from  the  fact  that  this  Latin  translation  has  very 
little  authority,  this  assembly,  in  accordance  with  what  has 
already  been  said  (p.  272),  in  which  the  Emperor  made  this 
declaration,  belongs  to  the  year  730.  It  appears,  too,  that  a 
number,  perhaps  the  most  of  the  old  pictures  in  the  churches, 
were  wall  pictures  or  wall  mosaics,  which  could  not  easily  be 
disturbed,  and,  besides,  were  mostly  fixed  at  a  considerable 
height.  Moreover,  the  incidents  now  to  be  narrated  would 
be  quite  inexplicable  if  the  Emperor  had  only  required  the 
pictures  to  be  hung  higher.  Theophanes  relates,  at  the  year 
7 1 8  of  his  reckoning,  i.e.  the  tenth  year  of  Leo,  or  A.D.  716: 
"  The  inhabitants  of  Constantinople  were  much  disturbed  by 
the  new  doctrines  (the  prohibition  of  images),  and  provoked  to 
insurrection.  When  some  servants  of  the  Emperor  destroyed 
the  figure  of  the  Lord  over  the  great  brass  gate,  they 
were  killed  by  the  populace,  whereupon  the  Emperor 
punished  many  for  their  piety  (adhesion  to  the  images) 
with  mutilation,  blows,  and  exile."  On  the  same  occurrence 
Pope  Gregory  n.,  in  his  first  letter  to  the  Emperor  Leo,  says  : 
"  When  you  sent  the  Spatharocandidatus  (i.e.  Spatharius  and 
Candidatus  at  once ;  see  Du  Cange)  Jovinus  to  Chalcoprateia 
(a  division  of  Constantinople  where  metal  wares  were  sold), 
in  order  to  destroy  the  figure  of  Christ  which  is  called 

1  Baron,  ad  ann.  726,  5. 

2  So  Walch,  I.e.  S.  225  ;  and  Neander,  K.G.  Bd.  iii.  S.  287. 
V.— 18 


274  HISTOKY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Antiphonetes,1  some  pious  women  who  stood  there  besought 
the  workman  not  to  do  so.  He,  however,  paying  no  attention 
to  this,  climbed  a  ladder  and  struck  with  an  axe  three  times 
the  face  of  the  figure  of  Christ.  (It  was  not,  then,  merely  that 
he  wanted  the  figure  to  be  hung  higher :  it  hung  already  so 
high  that  he  required  a  ladder.)  The  women,  profoundly  in 
dignant,  overturned  the  ladder,  and  struck  him  dead  ;  but  you 
sent  your  servants  and  caused  I  know  not  how  many  of  the 
women  to  be  executed."  The  like  is  related  by  Cedrenus 
and  others,  and  small  variations  in  the  particular  accounts 
are  of  no  great  moment. 

The  biographer  of  S.  Stephen  transfers  this  incident  to 
the  time  after  the  deposition  of  the  Patriarch  Germanus,  and 
adds :  These  women,  after  they  had  upset  the  ladder  of  the 
image-breaker,  drew  off  in  front  of  the  residence  of  the  new 
patriarch,  Anastasius,  in  order  to  stone  him,  and  shouted, 
"  You  shameful  enemy  of  the  truth,  have  you  been  made 
patriarch  for  this  purpose,  that  you  might  destroy  the  sanc 
tuaries  ? "  Eesting  upon  this,  Pagi  removed  this  incident  to 
the  year  730,  and  regards  it  as  a  consequence  of  the  second 
edict.2  Almost  all  the  later  scholars  agreed  with  him ;  but 
Theophanes  and  Cedrenus — not  to  mention  Anastasius  and 
Paul  the  deacon — place  this  occurrence  expressly  in  the  tenth 
year  of  Leo  (  =  726),  and  Pope  Gregory  n.  clearly  refers  it 
to  the  beginning  of  the  controversy  about  images.  The  first 
intelligence,  he  says,  of  the  iconoclasm  of  the  Emperor  came 
to  the  West  through  those  who  had  been  witnesses  of  the 
incident  at  Chalcoprateia ;  and  before  an  imperial  edict  against 
the  images  had  stirred  up  a  ferment  in  the  West,  the  news 
of  that  occurrence  had  caused  incursions  of  the  Lombards 
into  the  imperial  provinces  of  Italy.3 

Thence  it  further  appears  that  between  the  destruction  of 
that  figure  of  Christ  and  the  composition  of  the  papal  letter 
a  considerable  interval  must  have  elapsed.  We  could  not, 

1  A  so-called  miracle-working  image,  which  once  gave  bail  for  a  pious  sailor 
Theodore,    who    was     required    to    raise    some     money:    dvTKfruvrjTris  —  Bail, 
security.     Cf.  Walch,  I.e.  S.  178  and  183  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  730,  5. 

2  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  9  ;  730,  3,  5,  6  ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  199,  201. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  969  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  11. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  275 

however,  account  for  this  if  we  removed  that  event  to  the  year 
730,  for  Pope  Gregory  died  on  February  11,  731,  and  we 
cannot  assign  the  letter  in  question  to  his  last  days,  as  he 
received  an  answer  to  it  from  the  Emperor,  and  even  addressed 
a  second  letter  to  him. 

The  assumption  that  the  brutal  destruction  of  the  cele 
brated  figure  of  Christ  gave  occasion,  so  early  as  the  year  726, 
to  violent  outbreaks  in  the  West,  need  not  be  a  matter  of 
doubt,  since,  in  the  same  year,  elsewhere  disturbances  and 
even  insurrections  arose  for  the  same  reason.  Theophanes 
(p.  623)  and  Mcephorus  (p.  65)  and  others  relate  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Greece  and  of  the  Cyclades  did  not  receive  the 
impious  error,  revolted  against  the  Emperor,  fitted  out  a  fleet, 
and  proclaimed  a  certain  Cosmas  as  rival  Emperor.  Under 
the  guidance  of  two  officers,  Agallianus  and  Stephanus,  they 
sailed  to  Constantinople,  and  arrived  there  on  April  18  of 
the  10th  Indie tion  (727).  But  their  ships  were  destroyed 
by  Greek-fire,  Agallianus  flung  himself  in  complete  armour 
into  the  sea,  Cosmas  and  Stephanus  were  executed,  and 
the  Emperor  proceeded  so  much  the  more  decidedly  in  his 
iconoclasm.  Soon  afterwards,  about  the  time  of  the  summer 
solstice  of  the  10th  Tndiction  (June  21,  727),  the  Arabs 
besieged  the  city  of  Nicsea,  which  was  defended  by  an 
imperial  army.  A  soldier  of  the  latter,  named  Constantine, 
at  this  time  threw  a  stone  at  a  picture  of  the  blessed  Virgin 
(OeoroKos),  which  had  been  set  up  in  the  city,  and  shattered 
its  feet ;  but  next  day  he  himself  was  killed  by  a  stone  in  an 
assault  by  the  Arabs.  Moreover,  as  Theophanes  (p.  625) 
says,  Nicsea  was  saved  "  by  the  intercession  of  Mary  and  other 
saints,  whose  images  were  venerated  there,  for  the  wholesome 
instruction  of  the  Emperor.  But  instead  of  repenting,  Leo 
now  also  cast  off  the  intercession  of  the  saints  and  the  venera 
tion  of  relics.  From  this  time  (i.e.  since  the  controversy  about 
images  began),  he  hated  the  Patriarch  Germanus,  and  declared 
(practically)  that  all  previous  emperors,  bishops,  and  Chris 
tians  were  idolaters." 

We  mentioned  above  the  letter  which  the  Patriarch  Ger 
manus  of  Constantinople  addressed  to  Bishop  Thomas  of 
Claudiopolis,  blaming  him  for  his  attacks  on  the  images.  As 


276  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

Germanus,  among  other  things,  says  here  :  On  account  of 
this  affair  whole  cities  and  peoples  were  in  no  slight  tumult,1 
we  may  assume  that  the  letter  of  Germanus  falls  in  this  time, 
and  that  some  bishops,  as  Thomas,  Constantine  of  Nacolia, 
and  others,  reformed  in  the  sense  of  the  Emperor.  They 
naturally  also  cast  the  images  out  of  their  churches.  In 
other  cities,  on  the  contrary,  whose  bishops  held  with  Ger 
manus,  the  attack  on  the  images  ordered  by  the  Emperor 
seems  hitherto  to  have  touched  the  interior  of  the  churches 
less  than  the  images  set  up  in  public  places.  Of  this  kind 
was  that  over  the  brazen  gate  at  Constantinople,  and  that 
destroyed  by  the  soldier  at  Nica^a,  whilst  the  latter  city, 
according  to  the  testimony  adduced  of  Theophanes,  was  at 
that  time  rich  in  sacred  pictures.  If  the  crusade  against  the 
images  was  to  make  powerful  progress,  and  the  interior  of 
the  churches  was  also  to  be  cleared,  it  was  necessary  finally 
to  gain  over  the  Patriarch  Germanus,  or  to  remove  him. 
Theophanes  (p.  625  sqq.)  relates  that,  in  the  year  721 
(according  to  his  reckoning  =  the  thirteenth  regnal  year  of 
Leo,  beginning  March  25,  729),  the  Emperor  summoned  the 
patriarch  to  him,  and  gave  him  first  very  friendly  words. 
Germanus  replied  :  "  An  ancient  prophecy  says  that  certainly 
an  assault  on  images  will  be  made,  but  not  in  your  reign." 
"  Under  what  reign,  then  ?  "  asked  the  Emperor.  "  Under 
Conon."  "  I  myself,"  said  the  Emperor,  "  in  baptism  received 
the  name  of  Conon."  Thereupon  the  patriarch  :  "  Far  be  it 
from  you,  my  lord,  that  under  your  government  this  evil 
should  come  to  pass.  For  he  who  does  this  is  a  forerunner 
of  antichrist."  The  tyrant,  embittered  by  this,  sought  in  the 
words  of  the  patriarch  material  for  a  charge  of  lese-majesty, 
in  order  that  he  might  depose  him  the  more  decently.  A 
helper  in  this  he  found  in  Anastasius,  the  pupil  and  companion 
of  the  patriarch,  who  wished  to  thrust  him  from  his  see. 
Germanus  remarking  this,  exhorted  the  new  Judas  gently,  in 
the  spirit  of  Christ  ;  but  as  he  would  not  listen  to  him,  and 
once,  when  the  patriarch  was  visiting  the  Emperor,  followed 
in  the  train  of  the  former,  Germanus  spoke  to  him  :  "  Do  not 


1  Nvv  5£  TroXets  6'Xat  /cat  ra  irK^d-ri  r&v  \aui>  OVK  iv  6\ly({}  irepl  TOIJTOV 
Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  124  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  260. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  277 

hasten  so;  you  will  soon  enough  come  into  the  circus."  He 
prophesied  to  him  in  those  words  the  destiny  which  happened 
to  him,  after  fifteen  years,  under  the  next  Emperor  (he  was 
set  upon  an  ass  and  carried  round  in  the  circus).  Hereupon 
the  Emperor,  on  Tuesday,  January  7,  of  the  13th  Indiction 
(730),  held  a  Silentium  or  consultative  assembly1  in  the 
hall  of  the  nineteen  accubiti  or  cushions,2  and  again  endea 
voured  at  this  to  bring  the  patriarch,  who  had  been  sum 
moned  to  it,  to  fall  in  with  his  scheme.  When  he  had  boldly 
resisted,  and  had  set  forth  [his  views  of]  the  truth  in  a  power 
ful  and  lengthy  speech,  but  saw  no  result,  he  laid  down  his 
episcopal  dignity,  and  took  off  his  pallium,  with  the  words : 
"  If  I  am  Jonah,  cast  me  into  the  sea ;  without  the  authority 
of  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  0  Emperor,  nothing  may  be 
altered  in  the  faith."  Thereupon  he  withdrew  into  his  private 
residence,  where  he  spent  his  remaining  days  (he  was  already 
over  ninety  years  of  age)  in  perfect  peace.  Anastasius  was 
consecrated  as  his  successor  on  January  7  (or,  as  other  MSS. 
give  it,  January  22). — Thus  relates  Theophanes  (l.c.),s  and 
the  Patriarch  Mcephorus  agrees  with  him.  Only,  he  speaks 
with  his  accustomed  brevity  merely  of  the  Silentium  which 
the  Emperor  held  (Mcephorus  calls  it  an  assembly  of  the 
people),  without  mentioning  the  preceding  negotiations  with 
Germanus ;  but  adds  very  well  that  Leo  wanted  to  induce 
him  to  put  forth  a  document  in  favour  of  the  destruction  of 
the  images.  We  see  from  this  that  the  patriarch  would  have 
had  to  publish  an  edict  against  the  images,  corresponding 
with  that  of  the  Emperor,  or  else  to  join  in  subscribing  a  new 
imperial  edict. 

Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  629)  says  quite  precisely  that  this 
Silentium  was  held  on  Tuesday,  January  7  (£").  But  in  the 
year  730,  January  7  fell  on  a  Saturday,  and  therefore  we 
must  here  assume  a  slip  of  the  pen.  Petavius,  in  his  notes 

1  The  Synodicon,  and  after  that  Spanheim  and  others,  erroneously  make  a 
Synod  of  this  meeting. 

2  On  this  building,  famed  for  its  beauty,  in  which  at  the  Christmas  festival 
the  Emperor  dined,  not  sedendo,  but  recumbendo,  cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  730,  1. 

3  According  to  John  Damascene,  Orat.  ii.  de  Imag.  c.  12,  Germanus  was 
beaten,  and  banished  from  the  country.     According  to  the  biography  of  Abbot 
Stephen,  he  was  even  strangled. 


278  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

to  Mcephorus  (I.e.  p.  128),  proposed  either  to  put  January  3 
instead  of  7,  or  instead  of  r^e pa  y  (Tuesday)  to  put  £"  (  = 
Saturday).  But  more  probable  is  perhaps  the  suggestion, 
instead  of  January  7  (f)  to  read  17  (tf).  The  different 
statements  will  then  agree,  that  the  new  patriarch,  Anastasius, 
had  been  ordained  on  January  22,  for  this  was  a  Sunday, 
and  indeed  the  next  Sunday  after  Tuesday,  January  17, — and 
it  is  on  Sundays  that  the  consecrations  of  bishops  did  and  do 
ordinarily  take  place. 

As  we  saw  above,  there  was  a  considerable  interval  be 
tween  the  interview  spoken  of  between  the  Emperor  and 
Germanus  and  the  holding  of  the  Silentium.  To  this  interval 
belong  the  attempts  to  entangle  the  patriarch  into  a  trial  for 
lese-majesty,  and  also  the  warnings  given  by  Germanus  to 
the  faithless  Anastasius,  and  his  visit  to  the  Emperor  con 
nected  with  the  prophesying.  Moreover,  so  at  least  we  sup 
pose,  Germanus  now  wrote  also  to  Pope  Gregory  IL,  in  order 
to  make  him  acquainted  with  the  demand  of  the  Emperor 
and  his  own  refusal.  This  letter  is  lost,  but  we  still  know  it 
from  the  answer  of  the  Pope,  which  is  preserved  among  the 
Acts  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Council.  Gregory  in  this 
letter  greets  the  patriarch  as  his  brother  and  champion  of  the 
Church,  whose  deeds  he  is  bound  to  praise.  "  Moreover,"  he 
proceeds,  "  we  might  fitly  declare  that  these  deeds  will  be 
still  more  proclaimed  by  that  precursor  of  impiety,  who  to 
thee,  0  fortunate  man  (felicitati  tuce),  has  returned  evil  for 
good.  He  thought  that  he  could  revolt  against  Him  who 
came  from  above  (Christ),  and  triumph  over  godliness.  But 
he  is  now  hindered  from  above,  and  robbed  of  his  hopes,  and 
has  heard  from  the  Church  what  Pharaoh  was  forced  to  hear 
from  Moses,  that  he  was  an  enemy  of  God.  But  he  heard 
also  the  word  of  the  prophet :  God  will  destroy  thee.  So  is 
he  hindered  in  his  undertakings,  deprived  of  power  by  the 
God-given  strength  of  your  opposition,  and  his  pride  has  been 
wounded  almost  to  annihilation.  The  strong,  as  Holy  Scrip 
ture  says,  has  been  overcome  by  the  weak.  Have  you  not 
fought  on  the  side  of  God,  and  as  God  has  directed  you,  since 
HE  ordained  that  in  the  camp  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  the 
labarum  of  the  cross  should  stand  first,  and  then  the  sacred 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  279 

picture  of  His  Mother  !  The  honour  shown  to  the  picture  goes 
over  to  the  prototype  (that  which  is  represented  in  the  picture), 
as  the  great  Basil  says  ;  and  the  use  of  pictures  is  full  of 
piety,  as  Chrysostom  expresses  himself.  .  .  .  And  the  Church 
does  not  err  when  she  asserts  that  God  permits  the  venera 
tion  of  images,  and  this  is  not  an  imitation  of  heathenism. 
When  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood  (S.  Matt.  ix.  20) 
set  up  a  statue  of  Christ  at  Paneas  in  remembrance  of  the 
miracle  wrought  on  her,  she  was  not  for  that  rejected  (by 
God) ;  on  the  contrary,  a  quite  unknown  medical  plant  grew 
up,1  by  the  grace  of  God,  at  the  foot  of  that  statue.  This  is 
for  us  a  proof  that  we  may  place  before  the  eyes  of  all  the 
human  form  of  Him  who  took  away  our  sins,  so  that  we  may 
thereby  know  the  greatness  of  the  self  -  humiliation  of  the 
divine  Logos,  and  call  to  remembrance  His  life  on  earth  and 
His  sufferings.  The  words  of  the  Old  Testament  are  no 
hindrance  to  this ;  for  if  God  had  not  become  man,  we  should 
not  represent  Him  in  human  form.  .  .  .  Only  the  images 
of  things  which  do  not  exist  are  called  idols,  as,  e.g.,  the 
images  of  non-existent  deities  feigned  by  the  Hellenic  myth 
ology.  The  Church  of  Christ  has  no  fellowship  with  idols, 
for  we  worship  no  calf,  etc.,  never  sacrificed  our  children  to 
demons,  etc.  Did  Ezekiel  see  (viii.  14,  16)  that  we  bewailed 
Adonis,  and  brought  a  burnt-offering  to  the  sun  ?  If,  how 
ever,  anyone,  in  Jewish  fashion,  misusing  the  words  of  the 
Old  Testament  which  were  formerly  directed  against  idolatry, 
accuses  our  Church  of  idolatry,  we  can  only  hold  him  for  a 
barking  dog,  and  as  a  Jew  of  later  times  he  shall  hear  that 
it  so  happened  that  Israel  brought  worship  to  God  by  means 
of  visible  things  which  were  prescribed  to  him,  and  com 
memorated  the  Creator  by  means  of  types!  He  would  have 
asked  for  more  at  the  holy  altar  than  at  the  calves  of  Samaria, 
more  at  the  rod  of  Aaron  than  of  Astarte  !  Yea,  Israel  would 
have  seen  more  at  the  rod  of  Moses,  at  the  golden  pot,  and 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  and  the  throne  of  grace  (cover  of  the 
ark),  and  the  ephod,  and  the  table,  and  the  tabernacle,  and 
the  cherubim,  which  are  merely  works  of  men's  hands,  and 

1  Cf.  the  author's  article  on  Christusbildcr  in  "VVetzer  and  Welte,  and  in  his 
Beitragc,  Bd.  ii.  S.  256  f. 


280  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

yet  are  called  the  most  holy.  If  Israel  had  thought  of  these 
things,  it  would  not  have  fallen  into  idolatry.  For  every 
image  which  is  made  in  the  name  of  God  is  worthy  of  venera 
tion  and  sacred.  .  .  .  The  mistress  of  Christendom  fought 
with  you,  the  Mother  of  God,1  and  those  who  have  long  rebelled 
against  her  have  experienced  an  opposition  as  strong  (from  her) 
as  a  contradiction  (from  you)."  2 

The  contents  of  this  letter,  as  we  believe,  by  themselves 
point  to  the  time  immediately  after  the  powerful  opposition 
which  Germanus  maintained  against  the  Emperor  (A.D.  729), 
and  before  the  Silentium,  when,  despairing  of  the  result  of  his 
effort,  he  laid  aside  the  episcopal  mantle.  The  words  of  the 
Pope,  so  far  the  echo  of  those  of  the  patriarch,  show  that 
the  latter  had  written  in  the  consciousness  of  a  spiritual 
victory  over  the  Emperor,  and  at  that  time  had  not  the 
intention  of  resigning.  On  the  contrary,  he  was  hoping,  by 
his  opposition,  to  put  an  end  to  the  controversy  about  images. 
After  that  Silentium,  on  the  contrary,  and  after  the  elevation 
of  Anastasius,  it  was  natural  that  the  latter  should  draw  up 
the  o-vyypa<f>ij  against  the  images  desired  by  the  Emperor,  as 
Nicephorus  (p.  65)  tells  us,  or  as  Theophanes  will  have  it 
(p.  929),  subscribed  the  edict  published  by  the  Emperor. 
Whether  this  was  different  from  that  of  the  year  726,  as 
Walch  (S.  225)  and  others  assume,  or  whether  that  which 
was  new  in  it  consisted  only  in  the  subscription  of  the 
patriarch,  may  remain  doubtful.  The  original  authorities 
do  not  require  us  to  assume  an  entirely  new  edict.  The 
assault  on  the  images,  however,  had  now,  in  any  case,  obtained 
an  ecclesiastical  sanction,  and  with  the  well-known  servility 
of  the  Greek  bishops,  after  the  opposition  of  the  prima  sedes 
had  been  broken,  the  Emperor  henceforth  made  sure  of  import 
ant  advances. 

It  was  otherwise  in  the  West.  It  is  indeed  unfortunately 
most  difficult  to  reconcile  the  accounts  of  what  happened 
there  with  one  another,  and  with  facts  otherwise  known. 
Theophanes  informs  us  that,  in  the  ninth  year  of  the  Emperor, 

1  [It  is  sufficient  merely  to  note  that  this  phrase  now  appears,  an  advance  upon 
the  Greek  0eoro/cos  =  God-bearer.] 

2  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  91  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  231  sqq. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE  CONTROVERSY  ABOUT   IMAGES.  281 

"  after  Pope  Gregory  of  Eome  had  learnt  this  (the  \6yos  of 
the  Emperor  on  the  removal  of  the  images),  he  wrote  to  Leo 
a  doctrinal  letter,  to  the  effect  that  the  Emperor  should  issue 
no  ordinance  in  regard  to  the  faith,  and  should  alter  nothing 
in  the  ancient  dogmas ;  that,  in  consequence,  he  prevented 
Italy  and  Eome  from  paying  taxes  (cfropovs)" 

Theophanes  speaks  of  the  same  affair  for  the  second 
time  (p.  628  f.,  at  the  year  729-730)  in  the  words:  "The 
Patriarch  German  us  withstood  the  Emperor  Leo  at  Constanti 
nople,  like  the  apostolic  man  Gregory  at  Kome,  who  separated 
Eome  and  Italy  and  the  whole  of  the  West  from  political 
and  ecclesiastical  obedience  to  Leo  and  from  his  Empire  .  .  . 
and  censured  him  in  his  universally  known  letters."  The 
third  passage  (p.  630)  runs:  "Gregory,  however,  the  holy 
bishop  of  Eome,  rejected  (the  new  patriarch)  Anastasius  with 
his  letters  (the  litterce  inthronisticce,  which  he  had  sent  to 
Eome),  reprimanded  the  Emperor  Leo,  in  a  letter,  for  his 
impiety,  and  made  Eome  and  the  whole  of  Italy  separate  from 
his  Empire." 

The  Latins  were  naturally  better  informed  on  this  sub 
ject  than  Theophanes.  Anastasius  relates,  in  his  biography 
of  Gregory  n.,  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  229  sqq. :  "The  Longo- 
bardi  made  an  incursion  into  the  imperial  domain  of  Italy 
(before  the  imperial  decree  against  the  images  arrived  in 
Italy),  took  Narnia  (in  the  Duchy  of  Spoleto)  and  Eavenna, 
and  secured  large  booty.  After  some  days,  the  Dux  Basil, 
the  Chartular  Jordanes,  and  the  sub-deacon  John  Luxion, 
conspired  to  put  the  Pope  to  death,  and  the  imperial  Spath- 
arius,  Maximus,  who  then  administered  the  Duchy  of  Eome, 
agreed  with  them ;  but  they  found  no  occasion  suitable  for 
this.  Subsequently,  when  the  Patriarch  Paul  came  to  Italy 
as  exarch,  they  again  formed  their  scheme,  but  the  affair  was 
discovered,  and  the  Eomans  killed  Luxion  and  Jordanes, 
whilst  Basil  took  refuge  in  a  monastery.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  exarch  Paul,  at  the  command  of  the  Emperor,  now  endea 
voured  to  kill  the  Pope,  "  eo  quod  censum  in  provincia  ponere 
prsepediebat,  et  cogitaret  suis  opibus  ecclesias  denudare,  sicut 
in  cseteris  actum  est  locis,  atque  alium  in  ejus  ordinare  loco," 
i.e.  because  the  Pope  prevented  him  from  oppressing  the 


282  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

province  with  an  (unjust)  tax,  and  because  the  Emperor  had 
the  intention  to  strip  the  churches  of  their  property,  as  it  had 
happened  elsewhere,  and  to  put  another  Pope  in  Gregory's 
place.  Thereupon  the  Emperor  sent  another  Spatharius  with 
the  command  to  remove  the  Pope  from  his  see,  and  Paul  sent 
for  the  execution  of  this  outrage  as  many  people  (soldiers) 
from  Eavenna  and  the  camps  to  Eome  as  he  could  get  for 
the  purpose.  But  the  Eomans  and  Lombards  rose  up  to 
defend  the  Pope,  took  possession  of  the  bridge  Salario  in 
Spoleto,  surrounded  the  boundaries  of  Eome,  and  prevented 
the  accomplishment  of  the  attempt. 

In  a  decree  which  was  afterwards  sent,  the  Emperor  had 
ordered  that  no  one  should  make  the  image  of  any  saint  or 
martyr  or  angel ;  these  things  were  all  accursed.  If  the 
Pope  should  agree  with  this,  the  favour  of  the  Emperor 
would  be  granted  to  him ;  if,  however,  he  opposed,  he  should 
lose  his  office.  The  pious  man,  however,  rejected  the  heresy, 
armed  himself  against  the  Emperor  as  against  an  enemy,  and 
wrote  in  all  directions  to  warn  Christians  to  be  on  their  guard 
against  the  new  impiety.  Upon  this  all  the  inhabitants 
of  Pentapolis  and  the  Venetian  army  offered  opposition  to 
the  imperial  command,  declaring  that  they  would  never  agree 
to  the  murder  of  the  Pope,  but,  on  the  contrary,  would  boldly 
fight  in  his  defence.  They  now  anathematised  the  exarch 
Paul,  and  him  who  had  given  him  the  commission,  as  well  as  all 
his  associates ;  and  discharging  themselves  from  obedience  to 
him,  the  Italians  generally  chose  their  own  leaders,  and  on 
learning  of  the  Emperor's  wickedness,  the  whole  of  Italy 
decided  to  choose  a  new  Emperor,  and  conduct  him  to  Con 
stantinople.  But  the  Pope  quieted  them,  and  induced  them 
to  give  up  this  design,  hoping  that  the  Emperor  would  still 
amend.  In  the  meantime,  the  Dux  (imperial  viceroy)  Ex- 
hilaratus  of  Naples  and  his  son  Hadrian  had  led  away  the 
inhabitants  of  Campania  to  obey  the  Emperor  and  to  make 
an  attempt  on  the  life  of  the  Pope.  The  Eomans,  however, 
followed  him  up,  and  put  him  and  his  son  to  death.  They 
also  drove  out  the  Dux  Peter  (from  Eome),  because  he  was 
suspected  of  having  written  to  the  f  Court  against  the  Pope. 
In  Eavenna,  however,  because  one  party  was  on  the  Emperor's 


OKIGIN  OF  THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT  IMAGES.  283 

side  and  the  other  with  the  Pope  and  the  faithful,  contro 
versies  broke  out,  and  the  Patriarch  Paul  (the  exarch)  thus 
lost  his  life.  The  Lombards  about  this  time  took  the  cities 
of  Castra  ^Emilia,  Ferorianus,  Montebelli,  Yerablum,  with 
Buxum  and  Persicetum,  also  Pentapolis1  and  Auximanum.2 
After  some  time,  the  Emperor  sent  the  patrician  Eutychius, 
the  eunuch,  who  had  formerly  been  exarch,  to  Naples,  to 
carry  through  the  plan  against  the  Pope  which  had  previously 
miscarried ;  but  it  was  soon  evident  that  he  would  violate 
the  churches,  and  ruin  and  plunder  all.  When  he  sent  one 
of  his  subordinates  to  Eome  with  the  command  to  kill  the 
Pope  and  the  nobles  of  the  city,  the  Eomans  endeavoured  to 
kill  the  envoy,  but  the  Pope  prevented  them.  They  now 
anathematised  Eutychius,  and  pledged  themselves  by  oath  to 
the  protection  of  the  Pope.  Eutychius  now  promised  to  the 
King  and  the  dukes  of  the  Lombards  great  presents  if  they 
would  desist  from  protecting  the  Pope ;  but  the  Lombards 
united  with  the  Eomans,  and  declared  themselves  ready  to 
lay  down  their  lives  for  the  Pope.  The  latter  thanked  the 
people  for  such  attachment,  but  sought  his  chief  protection 
in  God  by  abundant  prayers  and  fasting  and  rich  almsgiving. 
At  the  same  time  he  exhorted  them  all  ne  desisterent  ab 
amore  vel  fide  Romani  imperil.  About  the  same  time,  in 
the  llth  Indiction  (from  September  1,  727—728),  the  Lom 
bards  got  possession,  by  stratagem,  of  the  castle  of  Sutri  (in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Eome,  to  the  north),  and  held  it  for 

1  Pentapolis  consists   of  the  district  of  the  five  cities  of  Rimini,    Pesaro, 
Fano,  Umana,  and  Ancona.     Cf.  Muratori,  Hist.  Italy,  vol.  iv. 

2  The  names  of  the  cities  are  given  somewhat  differently  by  Paul  the  deacon, 
Hist.  Longdb.  lib.  vi.  c.  49.     Muratori  (Hist.  Italy,  vol.  iv. )  says  on  this  sub 
ject  :  "So  much  may  be  learnt  from  these  words,  that  the  city  of  Osimo  (Auxi 
manum)  is  distinguished   from   Pentapolis,  Feronianum  or  Fregnano  was   a 
province  of  the  Duchy  of  Modena,  in  the  mountain  range  in  which  Sestola, 
Fanano,  and  other  places  lie.     Mons  Bellius  is  Monte  Beglio  'or  Monte  Vio, 
in  the  chain  of  Bononia  [Bologna],  near  the  river  Samoggia.     Verablo   and 
Busso,  or  Busseta,  are  perhaps  falsified  names,  for  it  cannot  be  Busseto,  which 
lies  between  Parma  and  Piacenza  towards  the  Po,  since  it  is  incredible  that  the 
Lombards,  as  masters  of  the  neighbouring  cities,   should  have   put  off  the 
taking  of  this  place  until  this  time.     Persicetum  is  a  strip  of  country  which,  in 
ancient  times,  belonged  to  the  county  of  Modena.     The  excellent  estate  of  San 
Giovanni  in  Persiceto  in  the  Bononian  district  has  retained  that  name  until 


284  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS, 

140  days,  until  the  Pope,  by  entreaties  and  gifts,  received  it 
back  as  an  offering  for  the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  Soon 
afterwards,  in  the  January  of  the  12th  Indiction  (729), 
a  comet  appeared  in  heaven.  Now  also  Eutychius  and 
Luitprand,  King  of  the  Lombards,  entered  into  the  shame 
ful  league,  to  unite  their  armies  and  subject  to  Luitprand  the 
Lombard  vassal  dukes  of  Spoleto  and  Benevento  (who  perhaps 
were  endeavouring  to  make  themselves  independent),  and  to 
seize  the  city  of  Rome  for  the  Emperor,  and  to  deal  with  the 
Pope  according  to  his  instructions.  Luitprand  in  fact  com 
pelled  the  two  dukes  to  subjection,  and  then  drew  towards 
Eome.  But  the  Pope  met  him  and  spoke  so  earnestly  to  him 
that  the  King  cast  himself  at  his  feet.  Only,  he  petitioned 
that  the  Pope  would  again  receive  Eutychius  in  peace.  This 
was  done,  and  the  reconciliation  took  place. 

Whilst  the  exarch  was  residing  in  Eome,  a  deceiver, 
Tiberius  Petasius,  set  himself  up  in  Italy  as  rival  Emperor, 
and  received  homage  from  several  cities.1  The  exarch  was 
greatly  troubled  about  this,  but  the  Pope  comforted  him  and 
supported  him  so  powerfully,  that  the  insurrection  was  speedily 
suppressed,  and  they  were  able  to  send  the  head  of  Tiberius 
to  Constantinople.  Notwithstanding  this,  the  Emperor 
remained  unfavourable  to  the  Romans.  Moreover,  his  evil 
disposition  became  ever  clearer,  so  that  he  compelled  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Constantinople  everywhere  to  take  away  the 
pictures  of  the  Redeemer,  of  His  holy  Mother,  and  of  all  the 
saints,  to  burn  them  in  the  middle  of  the  city,  and  to  smear 
the  painted  walls  with  whitewash.  As  a  good  many  of  the 
inhabitants  resisted,  several  were  executed  and  others  muti 
lated.  The  Patriarch  Germanus  was  deposed  by  the  Emperor, 
who  made  over  the  see  to  Anastasius.  The  latter  sent  a 
Synodica  to  Rome,  but  Gregory  found  that  he  assented  to  the 
heresy,  and  threatened  him  with  excommunication  if  he  did 
not  return  to  the  Catholic  faith.  And  to  the  Emperor  he 
gave  wholesome  counsels  in  letters.2 

From  all  this  we  learn  (1)  that  even  before  the  imperial 
edict  against  images  was  published  in  Italy,  a  violent  division 

1  What  cities  these  were,  Muratori  examines,  I.e. 
-  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  229-232. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT  IMAGES.  285 

between  Pope  Gregory  n.  and  the  Emperor  had  taken  place. 
How  and  why  it  arose,  Anastasius  does  not  relate,  he  only 
says :  The  Pope  prevented  the  exarch  from  imposing  a  tax 
on  the  (Eoman)  province.  By  this  tax  we  have  to  think  of 
an  unusual  and  unjust  import,  probably  similar  to  the  poll- 
tax  which  the  Emperor  Leo,  somewhat  later,  imposed  on 
Calabria  and  Sicily.1  Anastasius  indicates  that  it  had  been 
directed  chiefly  to  the  plundering  of  the  churches,  and 
perhaps  it  is  here  that  we  are  to  find  the  ground  of  the  papal 
resistance.  As  to  the  manner  in  which  this  was  exercised, 
its  legal  character  can  no  longer  be  ascertained,  on  account  of 
the  quite  defective  account  of  Anastasius  (and  Theophanes). 
It  is  only  clear  from  the  subsequent  behaviour  of  the  Pope 
(which  we  learn  from  Anastasius),  that  he  endeavoured  to 
preserve  carefully  his  loyalty  to  the  Emperor  and  to  dis 
charge  his  duties  as  a  subject.  It  was  an  opposition  to 
unrighteous  demands  from  authority,  and  within  the  bounds 
of  right  and  duty.  But  that  the  Pope  did  not  hinder  the 
payment  of  legal  dues  and  taxes,  nor  was  guilty  even  of  great 
disloyalty  towards  the  Emperor,  is  quite  sufficiently  clear  (a) 
from  the  principles  which  he  himself  set  forth  on  the  relation 
of  the  priesthood  and  the  imperial  power  in  his  letters  to  the 
Emperor  Leo.  We  shall  shortly  ascertain  their  contents 
more  exactly  (pp.  293  and  29*7).2  Witnesses  for  us  are  also 
(b)  the  zealous  efforts  of  Gregory  to  prevent  any  kind  of 
rebellion  against  the  Emperor,  and  all  acts  of  violence 
against  his  officials.  This  is  clear  from  the  details  which 
Anastasius  gives,  and  from  the  letter  of  the  Pope  to  Duke 
Ursus  in  Venice  (p.  287).  But  moreover  (c),  Paul  the 
deacon  is  a  powerful  witness  on  the  same  side,  since  he 
writes  (De  rebus  gestis  Longobard.  vi.  49):  "  Omnis  quoque 
Eavennae  exercitus  et  Venetiarum  talibus  jussis  (for  the 
destruction  of  the  images)  uno  ammo  restiterunt,  et  nisi  eos 
prohibuisset  Pontifex,  imperatorem  super  se  constituere  fuissent 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  631  ;  cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  10  ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  261. 

2  Walch,  I.e.  S.  248,  and  Bd.  ix.  S.  459  f.,  shows,  in  reference  to  the  refusal 
of  the  taxes,   that  the   Pope  had  behaved   similarly  towards   the  Emperor 
Philippicus  Bardanes,  because  he  was  a  heretic.     But  it  is  to  be  observed  that 
then  it  was  the  Roman  people,  and  not  the  Pope,  who  refused  obedience  to  the 
Emperor. 


286  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

aggressi"  When,  therefore,  the  Greeks,  who  were  often  badly 
instructed  in  Western  affairs,  assert  that  the  Pope  had 
occasioned  the  revolt  not  merely  of  Italy,  but  the  whole  of 
the  West  (!)  from  the  Emperor,  such  an  assertion  cannot 
weigh  in  the  balance  against  the  words  of  Gregory  himself, 
and  against  the  testimony  of  Anastasius  and  Paul  the  deacon. 
When,  however,  Zonaras  says,  "  The  Pope  and  his  Synod 
had  anathematised  the  Emperor/'  seeing  that  no  other  of  the 
ancients  mentions  it,  this  must  be  only  a  misunderstanding 
arising  out  of  an  expression  in  the  second  letter  of  Gregory  to 
the  Emperor  Leo  (see  p.  296  f .),  when  the  Pope,  applying  the 
words  of  S.  Paul  (1  Cor.  v.  5),  wishes  the  Emperor  a  demon 
for  the  destruction  of  his  flesh  that  his  soul  may  be  safe.1 
On  another  misunderstanding  rests  the  assertion  of  the  same 
Zonaras,  that  Pope  Gregory  n.  had  endeavoured  to  form  a 
union  with  the  Franks  against  the  Emperor.  That  the  Pope 
did  make  efforts  for  such  a  union  is  quite  correct,  and 
Anastasius  in  his  Vita  StepJiani  n.  (nr.)  speaks  of  it ; 2  but 
it  was  directed  against  the  Lombards,  not  against  the 
Emperor. 

(2)  We    remember     that     Theophanes     represents     the 
hindering  of  the  imposition  of  that  tax  as  a  consequence  of 
the  controversy  about  images  of  the  year  726.     Anastasius, 
on  the  other  hand,  brings  these  two  events  into  no  connection 
with  one  another. 

(3)  He  says   expressly,  the  imperial  officers  had,  with 
the   previous  knowledge  of    the  Emperor,  repeatedly   made 
attempts  on  the  life  of  the  Pope.     Some  explain  this  to  mean 
that  the  Emperor  Leo  had  only  given  orders  that  the  Pope 
should  be  taken  and  conveyed  to  Constantinople,  of  which 
Gregory  himself  speaks  in  his  first  letter  to  Leo  (see  p.  293  f.), 
and  that  report  had  exaggerated  the  matter,  and  made  the 
order  to  imprison  a  command  to  murder.3 

1  Natalis  Alexander  wrote  a  special  treatise,  De  Gregorii  n.  erga  Leonem 
Imp.  moderatione,  Hist.  Heel.  Sec.  viii.  Diss.  i.  t.  vi.  p.  72  sqq.,  ed.  Venet.  1778. 
This  subject  has  been  further  handled,  although  sometimes  with  very  different 
conclusions,  by  Baron,  ad  ann.  730,  5  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  10-13  ;  730,  8-11  ; 
Bower,  Hist,  of  Popes,  vol.  iv.;  Walch,  I.e.  Bd.  x.  S.  263-283. 

2  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  524 ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  13  ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  255. 

3  Walch,  I.e.  Bd.  x.  S.  283  ff. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  28*7 

(4)  Anastasius  speaks  of  two  principal  incursions  of  the 
Lombards   into   the    imperial    domain.      The  one,   in   which 
they  seized  the  city  of  Narnia,  and  even  Eavenna,  the  capital 
of  the  exarchate,  with  the  harbour  of  Classis,  and  carried  off 
much  booty,1  he  places  before  the  arrival  of  the  edict  against 
the  images  ;  the  other  incursion,  in  which  Castra  ^Emilia,  etc., 
were  plundered,  later.       To  the  same  effect,  Paul  the  deacon 
(De  gestis  Longobard.   vi.   48,  49)    tells  of  the   pillaging  of 
Narnia   and    Eavenna,  before    he  mentions  the    prohibition 
of  the  images ;  but  speaks  of  Castra  ^Emilia,  etc.,  falling  into 
the  hands  of   the    Lombards   after    the    appearance    of  the 
imperial  edict.     For  full  light  on  this  subject,  however,  we 
are  indebted  to  the  first  letter  of  Gregory  n.  to  the  Emperor 
Leo,   in   which   it    is   said    that  many  Westerns    had    been 
present  at  the  time  of  the  destruction  of  the  figure  of  Christ 
in  Chalcoprateia  in  Constantinople,  and  by  telling  of  this  out 
rage,  and  of  the  cruelties  connected  with  it,  they  had  filled  the 
whole  of  the  West  with  anger  against  the  Emperor,  so  that 
the  Lombards  invaded  Decapolis,2  and  even  seized  Eavenna.3 

We  see  that  the  Lombards  made  use  of  the  disagree 
ment  of  the  Italians  with  the  Emperor  which  had  been  occa 
sioned  by  those  relations,  and  invaded  his  domain,  which  had 
long  been  desired  by  them.  The  capture  of  Eavenna  etc., 
certainly  was  connected  with  the  prohibition  of  images,  and 
was  a  consequence  of  it ;  and  yet  Anastasius  and  Paul  the 
deacon  were  right  when  they  put  this  incident  before  the 
publication  of  the  imperial  edict  in  Italy.  Undoubtedly 
those  witnesses  of  the  destruction  of  the  figure  of  Christ  in 
Chalcoprateia  brought  the  first  certain  intelligence  of  the 
attack  on  the  images  to  Italy. 

(5)  Among   the  letters  of   Gregory   n.   there  is  one  to 
Ursus,  the  Dux  of  Venice.4     Gregory  says  in  it :  The  city  of 

1  In  the  passage  in  Anastasius;  we  should  certainly  read  captos  instead  of 
capias. 

2  Decapolis  consisted  of  ten  cities  of  the  exarchate  of  Ravenna,  united  for 
mutual  protection,  namely,  Ravenna,  Classis,  Csesarea,  Cervia,  Cesena,  Forlim- 
populi,  Forli,  Bologna,  Faenza. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  970  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  11.     See  below,  p.  293  f. 

4  Venice  belonged   then   to  the  Byzantine  emperors :  see  Muratori,    I.e.  ; 
Walch,  I.e.  S.  245f. 


288  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Ravenna  was  taken  a  non  dicenda  gente  Longobardorum,  and, 
as  he  hears,  the  exarch  fled  to  Venice.  The  Dux  should 
remain  faithful  to  him,  and  co-operate  with  him,  so  that 
Eavenna  may  again  be  restored  to  the  Emperor.1  That  this 
was  actually  realised  we  learn  from  Paul  the  deacon  (De  gestis 
Longobard.  vi.  5  4),  who  says :  In  his  many  wars  against  the 
imperialists,  the  King  of  the  Lombards,  Luitprand,  was  only 
twice  unfortunate — once  at  Ariminum ;  the  second  time,  when 
his  nephew  Hildebrand,  whom  he  placed  over  Eavenna,  was 
surprised  by  a  sudden  attack  of  the  Venetians,  and  taken. 

That  Pope  Gregory  used  the  expression  of  horror,  A  non 
dicenda  gente,  in  reference  to  the  Lombards,  is  clearly  shown 
by  the  fact  that  this  letter  was  written  before  the  Lombards 
had  come  nearer  to  him,  and  made  themselves  serviceable  to 
him.  Indeed,  the  recovery  of  Eavenna  must  have  taken 
place  before,  for  the  exarch  Paul  was  able  soon  again  to 
send  out  from  Eavenna  an  army  against  Eome  and  the  Pope, 
as  Anastasius  and  Paul  the  deacon  concur  in  relating.  This 
was  that  army  which  was  opposed  by  the  united  Eomans 
and  Lombards  at  the  Pons  Salarius  (p.  281  f.). 

(6)  Pagi,  Walch,  and  others  assume   that  the  imperial 
edict   against   the  images,   of   the   publication   of   which   in 
Italy  Anastasius  speaks,  was  that  of  the   year    7  3  0  ; 2    but 
Anastasius    gives    us   quite    another    chronological   turning- 
point.     After  describing   the  disturbances  which   this  edict 
caused  in  Italy,  and  the  indestructible  fidelity  of  the  much 
ill-used    Pope  to  the   Emperor,  he  thus  proceeds :    "  About 
the  same  time  (i.e.  some  time  after  the  publication  of  the 
imperial  edict),  the  Lombards,  in  the   llth  Indiction  (Sep 
tember  1,  727,  728),  got  possession  of  the  castle  of  Sutri, 
and  in  January  729  a  comet  appeared."     According  to  this, 
the  publication  of  the  imperial  decree  must  have  happened 
some  time  before  the  year  728,  so  that  the  first  decree  of 
the  year  726  must  here  be  meant. 

(7)  Theophanes,3  immediately  after  the  mention  of   the 
first  edict  against   the  images,  adds  that    the  Pope  sent  a 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  244  ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  726,  27.    Muratori,  I.e.)  suggests 
some  doubts  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this  letter. 

2  Walch,  I.e.  S.  248,  Anm.  3  P.  621. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  289 

letter  against  it  to  Leo,  setting  forth  "  that  it  was  not  the 
Emperor's  business  to  issue  an  ordinance  on  the  faith,  or  to 
alter  anything  in  the  old  dogmas."  In  two  other  places  also 
Theophanes  speaks  (see  above,  p.  2  8 1  f.)  of  letters  of  Gregory 
to  the  Emperor,  and  Anastasius  also  refers  to  them.  But  it 
was  not  until  the  sixteenth  century  that  these  letters  were 
discovered  by  the  learned  Jesuit  Fronton  le  Due  in  the 
library  of  the  Cardinal  of  Lorraine,  and  translated  from  the 
Greek  into  Latin.  From  him  Baronius  received  them,  and 
had  them  printed  for  the  first  time  ad  ann.  726.  Pope 
Gregory  bears  in  the  superscription  of  these  letters,  by 
confusion  with  Gregory  the  Great,  the  surname  of  Dialogus, 
the  latter  on  account  of  his  famous  work  of  that  name  being 
often  so  entitled.  These  letters  soon  found  their  way  into 
the  Collections  of  Councils,  and  were  placed  before  the  Acts 
of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Council.  That  they  were  not, 
like  other  similar  documents  e.g.  the  letter  of  the  same 
Pope  to  the  Patriarch  Germanus,  presented  and  read  at  the 
seventh  (Ecumenical  Council,  is  certainly  remarkable,  as 
Eosler  observes ;  *  but  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the 
Emperor  Leo  had  probably  caused  the  copy  which  came  to 
Constantinople  to  be  destroyed,  and  thus  the  Synod  had 
none  in  hand.  Labbe  was  mistaken  in  thinking  that  these 
two  letters  should  not  be  ascribed  to  Gregory  IL,  but  to  his 
successor  Gregory  in.,2  and  the  doubts  which  Semler  and 
Eosler  have  raised  as  to  their  genuineness  are  of  no 
importance.  As  to  the  time  of  the  composition  of  these 
letters,  we  can  form  a  judgment  only  after  we  have  com 
municated  their  contents. 

The  first  runs  :  "  Your  letter,  God-protected  Emperor  and 
brother,  we  received  through  the  imperial  Spatharocandidatus, 
when  you  were  reigning  in  the  14th  Indiction.  We  have 
preserved  safe  in  the  church  your  letter  of  this  14th  Indiction, 
and  those  of  the  15th,  and  of  the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th, 
7th,  8th,  and  9th,  at  the  foot  of  the  grave  of  Peter,  where 
those  of  your  predecessors  are  also  kept.  In  ten  letters  you 
have,  as  is  becoming  in  a  Christian  emperor,  promised  faith- 

1  Bibliothek  der  Kirchcnvatcr,  Bd.  x.  S.  475. 

2  Cf.  on  the  other  side,  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  5,  and  Walch,  I.e.  S.  173  f. 

V.  — 19 


290  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

fully  to  observe  the  doctrines  of  the  Fathers.  And  above  all, 
the  most  important  is,  that  they  are  your  own,  furnished  with 
the  imperial  seal,  and  none  interpolated.  You  write  in  these  : 
If  anyone  removes  the  ordinances  of  the  Fathers,  let  him  be 
anathema.  After  receipt  of  these  letters  we  offered  hymns 
of  thanksgiving  to  God  that  He  had  given  you  the  empire. 
And  as  you  did  run  well,  who  has  rung  the  falsehood  into 
your  ears  and  perverted  your  heart  ?  Ten  years  by  God''s 
grace  you  have  walked  aright,  and  not  mentioned  the  sacred 
images ;  but  now  you  assert  that  they  take  the  place  of  idols, 
and  that  those  who  reverence  them  are  idolaters,  and  want  them 
to  be  entirely  set  aside  and  destroyed.  You  do  not  fear  the 
judgment  of  God,  and  that  offence  will  be  given  not  merely 
to  the  faithful,  but  also  to  the  unbelieving.  Christ  forbids 
our  offending  even  the  least,  and  you  have  offended  the  whole 
world,  as  if  you  had  not  also  to  die  and  to  give  an  account. 
You  wrote  :  '  We  may  not,  according  to  the  command  of  God 
(Exod.  xx.  4),  worship  anything  made  ly  the  hand  of  man,  nor 
any  likeness  of  that  which  is  in  the  heaven  or  in  the  earth!  Only 
prove  to  me,  who  has  taught  us  to  worship  (aefiecrOai  KOI  Trpocr- 
Kvveiv)  anything  made  ~by  man's  hands,  and  I  will  then  agree 
that  it  is  the  will  of  God.  But  why  have  not  you,  0 
Emperor  and  head  of  the  Christians,  questioned  wise  men  on 
this  subject  before  disturbing  and  perplexing  poor  people  ? 
You  could  have  learnt  from  them  concerning  what  kind  of 
images  made  with  hands  (^eLpoiroi^Ta)  God  said  that.  But 
you  have  rejected  our  Fathers  and  doctors,  although  you  gave 
the  assurance  by  your  own  subscription  that  you  would  follow 
them.  The  holy  Fathers  and  doctors  are  our  scripture,  our 
light,  and  our  salvation,  and  the  six  Synods  have  taught  us 
(that) ;  but  you  do  not  receive  their  testimony.  I  am  forced 
to  write  to  you  without  delicacy  or  learning,  as  you  also  are 
not  delicate  or  learned ;  but  my  letter  yet  contains  the 
divine  truth.  .  .  .  God  gave  that  command  because  of  the 
idolaters  who  had  the  land  of  promise  in'  possession,  and 
worshipped  golden  animals,  etc.,  saying  :  These  are  our  gods, 
and  there  is  no  other  God.  On  account  of  these  diabolical 
^eipoiroir]Ta,  God  has  forbidden  us  to  worship  them.  As, 
however,  there  are  also  ^eipoTroi^ra  for  the  service  and 


ORIGIN  OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  291 

honour  of  God,  ...  God  chose  and  blessed  two  men  from  the 
people  of  Israel,  that  they  might  prepare  ^et/joTro^Ta,  but  for 
the  honour  and  service  of  God,  namely,  Bezaleel  and  Aholiab 
(Exod.  xxxv.  30,  34).  God  Himself  wrote  the  Ten  Com 
mandments  on  two  tables  of  stone,  and  said :  Make  cherubim 
and  seraphim,  and  a  table,  and  overlay  it  with  gold  within 
and  without ;  and  make  an  ark  of  shittim  wood,  and  in  the 
ark  place  the  testimonies  for  the  remembrance  of  your  tribes, 
namely,  the  tables  of  the  Law,  and  the  pot,  and  the  rod,  and 
the  manna  (Exod.  xxv.  10-24).  Are  those  objects  and 
figures  made  by  man's  hand  or  not  ?  But  for  the  honour 
and  the  service  of  God.  Moses  wished  to  see  the  Lord,  but 
He  showed  Himself  to  him  only  from  behind.  To  us,  on  the 
contrary,  the  Lord  showed  Himself  perfectly,  since  the  Son 
of  God  has  been  made  man.  .  .  .  From  all  parts  men  now 
came  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Him,  and  then  depicted  and  repre 
sented  Him  to  others.  In  the  same  way  they  have  depicted 
and  represented  James,  Stephen,  and  the  martyrs ;  and  men, 
leaving  the  worship  of  the  devil,  have  venerated  these  images, 
but  not  absolutely  (with  latria)  but  relatively  (ravras  Trpoa- 
eKwrjo-ev  ov  \arpevr new  a\\a  cr^erttfa^).  What  think  you 
now,  0  Emperor,  that  these  images  are  venerable  or  those  of 
the  diabolical  illusion  ?  Christ  Himself  sent  His  portrait  to 
Abgar,  an  a^et/ooTro^Toi/.1  Look  on  this  :  many  peoples  of 
the  East  assemble  at  this,  in  order  to  pray  there.  And  also 
other  images  made  by  men's  hands  are  venerated^  by  pious 
pilgrims  till  to-day.  Why,  then,  do  we  make  no  represen 
tation  of  God  the  Father  ?  The  divine  nature  cannot  be 
represented.  If  we  had  seen  Him,  as  we  have  the  Son,  we 
could  also  make  an  image  of  Him.  We  adjure  you,  as  a 
brother  in  Christ,  turn  back  again  to  the  truth,  and  raise  up 
again  by  a  new  edict  those  whom  you  have  made  to  stumble. 
Christ  knows  that  so  often  as  we  go  into  the  Church  of 
S.  Peter,  and  see  the  picture  of  this  saint,  we  are  moved  and 
tears  flow  from  us.  Christ  has  made  the  blind  to  see  :  you 
have  made  the  seeing  blind.  .  .  .  You  say :  We  worshiji 
stones  and  walls  and  boards.  But  it  is  not  so,  0  Emperor ;  but 

1  Cf.tlie  author's  articles  on  Abgar  Uchomo  and  ChristusUlder  in  the  Kirchen- 
lexicon  of  Wetzcr  and  \Vclte  ;  and  his  Beitrdge  zur  Kirchcng.  Bd.  ii.  S.  259  f. 


292  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

they  serve  us  for  remembrance  and  encouragement,  lifting  our 
slow  spirits  upwards  by  those  (persons)  whose  names  the 
pictures  bear,  and  whose  representations  they  are.  And  we 
worship  them  not  as  God,  as  you  maintain  ;  God  forbid ! 
For  we  set  not  our  hope  on  them  ;  and  if  a  picture  of  the 
Lord  is  there,  we  say  :  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  help  and  save  us. 
At  a  picture  of  His  holy  Mother  we  say  :  Holy  God-bearer, 
pray  for  us  with  thy  Son,  and  so  with  a  martyr.  And  this  is 
not  correct  which  you  say,  that  we  call  the  martyrs  gods.  I 
adjure  you,  leave  off  the  evil  thoughts,  and  save  your  soul 
from  the  wrath  and  execration  with  which  the  whole  world 
visits  you.  The  children  mock  at  you.  Go  now  into  the 
schools  of  the  children,  and  say :  I  am  the  enemy  of  images, 
and  they  will  immediately  throw  their  tables  at  you.  You 
wrote  :  As  the  Jewish  King  Uzziah  (it  should  be  Hezekiah) 
after  800  years  cast  the  brazen  serpent  out  of  the  temple 
(2  Kings  xviii.  4),  so  I  after  800  years  cast  the  images  out  of 
the  churches.  Yes,  Uzziah  was  your  brother ;  and,  like  you,  did 
violence  to  the  priests  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  16  ff.).  That  brazen 
serpent  David  brought  with  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant  into 
the  temple,  and  it  was  an  image  of  brass,  sanctified  by  God 
for  the  use  of  those  who  had  been  bitten  by  the  serpent 
(Num.  xxi.  9  ff.).  We  might  punish  you  in  accordance  with 
the  power  which  has  come  down  to  us  from  Peter ;  but  you 
have  pronounced  a  curse  upon  yourself,1  and  may  now  have 
it  with  your  counsellors.  What  a  great  edification  of  the 
faithful  you  have  destroyed  !  Christ  knows  that,  as  often  as 
we  went  into  the  church,  and  saw  the  representation  of  the 
miracles  of  Christ,  or  the  picture  of  His  Mother,  the  divine 
Suckling  in  her  arms,  and  the  angels  standing  round  in  a 
circle  and  acclaiming  the  Trisagion,  we  did  not  go  out  again 
without  emotion.  ...  It  would  have  been  better  for  you 
to  have  been  a  heretic  than  a  destroyer  of  images.  The 
dogma tisers  fall  easily  into  error,  when  they  are  lacking  in 
humility,  partly  from  ignorance,  partly  because  of  the  dark 
ness  of  the  subject ;  and  their  guilt  is  not  so  great  as  yours, 
for  you  have  persecuted  that  which  is  open  and  clear  as 

1  Since  the  Emperor  had  previously  written  :  "Cursed  be  he  who  removes 
the  ordinances  of  the  Fathers. " 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  293 

light,  and  stripped  the  Church  of  God.  The  holy  Fathers 
clothed  and  adorned  them  ;  you  have  stripped  them  and  laid 
them  bare,  although  you  have  (e%fc>i>)  so  excellent  a  high- 
priest,  our  brother  Germanus.  Him  you  ought  to  have  taken 
into  your  counsels  as  father  and  teacher,  for  he  has  great 
experience,  is  now  ninety-five  years  old,  and  has  served  many 
patriarchs  and  Emperors.  But,  leaving  him  aside,  you  have 
listened  to  the  impious  fool  from  Ephesus,  the  son  of  Apsimar 
(Archbishop  Theodosius,  see  p.  266),  and  people  like  him.  The 
Emperor  Constantine  (Pogonatus)  behaved  quite  differently 
when  he  wrote  to  Eome  about  the  holding  of  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod.  You  see  that  the  dogmas  of  the  Church 
are  not  a  matter  for  the  Emperor,  but  for  the  bishops.  As 
these  may  not  intrude  into  civil  affairs,  so  should  not  the 
Emperors  into  the  ecclesiastical.  You  wrote  that  an  (Ecu 
menical  Synod  should  be  called.  This  seems  to  me  superfluous  ; 
for  if  you  are  peaceful,  all  is  peaceful.  Think  :  if  I  had 
responded  to  your  wish,  and  the  bishops  of  the  whole  world 
had  been  assembled,  where  is  the  God-fearing  Emperor  who, 
in  accordance  with  custom,  should  assist  at  these  assemblies, 
since  you  destroy  the  peace  of  the  Church  and  imitate  the 
barbarians  (Jezid)?  .  .  .  While  the  churches  of  God  had 
deep  peace,  you  have  occasioned  conflicts,  controversies,  and 
troubles.  Cease  and  be  peaceful,  and  there  is  need  of  no 
Synod.  Write  to  all  the  countries  which  you  have  disquieted, 
that  Germanus  of  Constantinople  and  Pope  Gregory  of  Eoine 
had  erred  in  regard  to  the  images,  and  we  who  have  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosing  will  pardon  your  false  step.1 
God  is  witness  that  I  communicated  all  your  letters  to  the 
Kings  of  the  West,  and  made  them  your  friends,  commending 
and  praising  you.  Therefore  they  accepted  and  honoured 
your  laureata  (likenesses)  before  they  heard  of  your  evil 
undertaking  against  the  images.  When,  however,  they 
learnt  that  you  sent  the  Spatharocandidatus  Jovinus  to 
Chalcoprateia,  to  destroy  the  miraculous  figure  of  Christ, 

1  Gregory  thinks  the  Emperor,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  recall,  should  lay  the 
blame  upon  the  Pope  and  the  patriarch,  as  if  they  had  given  him  wrong  counsel 
in  regard  to  the  images.  So  I  believe  we  must  understand  this  difficult  passage, 
which  is  repeated  more  clearly  in  the  second  letter  of  the  Pope. 


294  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

which  is  called  Antiphonetes,  pious  women,  followers  of  those 
who  anointed  the  Lord,  cried  to  the  Spatharocandidatus  :  Do 
it  not ;  and  when  he  paid  no  regard  to  them,  but  mounted 
a  ladder  and  struck  with  an  axe  three  times  on  the  face  of 
the  figure,  the  women  enraged  upset  the  ladder  and  killed 
him  ;  but  you  sent  soldiers  and  caused  I  know  not  how  many 
women  to  be  killed  in  the  presence  of  many  distinguished 
men  from  Eome,  France,  from  the  Vandals,  Goths,  and  from 
Mauritania,  almost  from  the  whole  of  the  West.  When 
these  returned  back,  and  every  one  told  in  his  home  your 
childish  acts,  then  they  destroyed  your  laureata,  and  the 
Lombards,  Sarmatians,  and  others  who  dwell  in  the  North, 
made  incursions  into  the  unhappy  Decapolis  and  took  the 
metropolis  Kavenna,1  deposed  your  rulers,  put  their  own  in 
their  place,  and  wanted  to  do  the  same  with  the  imperial 
cities  in  our  neighbourhood,  and  even  with  Eome  itself,  unless 
you  can  protect  us.  There  you  have  the  fruit  of  your  folly. 
But  you  will  alarm  me  and  say  :  I  will  send  to  Home  and  destroy 
the  picture  of  S.  Peter,  and  carry  off  Pope  Gregory  a  prisoner,  as 
Constantine  (Constansil.)  did  with  Martin.  You  must  know  that 
the  bishops  of  Eome,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  sit  as  middle 
walls  between  the  East  and  West,  and  are  promoters  of  peace. 
If  you  wish  to  lay  snares  for  me,  as  you  say,  I  have  no  need 
to  contend  with  you.  The  Eoman  bishop  will  merely  remove 
twenty-four  stadia  to  Campania ;  and  then  come  you  and  per 
secute  the  winds.2  The  Emperor  Constantine  (Constans  II.)  ill- 
treated  and  banished  our  predecessor,  Martin  i.  But  the 
Emperor  was  murdered  in  his  sins,  whilst  Martin  is  honoured 
as  a  saint.  Willingly  would  I  bear  the  same  fate  as  Martin ; 
but  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  I  am  willing  to  remain  in  life  ; 
for  the  whole  West  turns  its  eyes  on  me,  although  unworthy, 
and  hopes  in  me  and  in  S.  Peter,  whose  image  you  threaten 

1  Gregory  says  nothing  of  the  fact  that  Ravenna  by  his  management  was 
retaken  by  the  help  of  the  Venetians  (see  p.  287  f. ).     He  is  also  silent  on  the  fact 
of  his  having  pacified  the  rebels  in  Italy,  and  restrained  them  from  the  appoint 
ment  of  a  new  Emperor.     His  letter  seems,  accordingly,  to  have  been  composed 
before  those  occurrences. 

2  Twenty-four  stadia  amount  to  about  half  a  geographical  mile.     Several 
doubt  whether  the  Lombards  had  come  so  near  to  Rome,  and  suppose  some 
error  of  transcription  in  the  number.     Cf.  Mtiratori,  L  c. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY  ABOUT  IMAGES.  295 

to  destroy.  If  you  venture  upon  that,  the  Westerns  are 
ready  to  take  vengeance  upon  you  for  the  Easterns  whom  you 
have  wronged.  But  I  adjure  you  by  the  Lord  to  leave  off 
from  such  foolish  things.  You  know  that  your  throne  cannot 
defend  Eome,1  the  city  alone,  not  to  think  of  that  which  is 
outside  ;  and  if  the  Pope,  as  we  said,  removes  himself  twenty- 
four  stadia,  he  has  no  more  to  fear  from  you.  ...  If  the 
picture  of  S.  Peter  is  really  destroyed,  I  call  God  to  witness 
that  I  am  innocent  of  the  blood  that  will  then  be  shed. 
Let  it  fall  on  your  head.  A  prince  from  the  interior  of  the 
West,  named  Septetus,2  has  prayed  me  to  come  to  him  and 
administer  baptism  to  him,  and  I  shall  do  so.  May  the  Lord 
again  place  in  your  heart  the  fear  of  God,  and  bring  you  back 
to  the  truth  !  Would  that  I  might  soon  receive  from  you 
letters  with  the  news  of  your  conversion."3 

We  saw  that  Pope  Gregory,  in  this  letter,  repeated  quite 
or  almost  verbally  several  passages  from  the  edict  which 
the  Emperor  had  sent  on  the  subject  of  the  images  to  Italy. 
We  have  quoted  those  passages  above  in  italics,  and  since,  as 
we  have  shown,  this  edict  was  not  published  in  Italy  in  the 
year  730,  but  before  728,  our  desire  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  tenor  of  the  first  edict,  at  least  in  outline,  is  satisfied. 
At  the  same  time,  we  see  how  Walch  and  others  have  gone 
astray,  who  regard  the  first  edict  as  mild,  and  would  ascribe 
to  it  only  the  prohibition  against  the  kissing  of  the  pictures. 
The  passages  extracted  from  the  edict  itself  prove  its  already 
fully  iconoclastic  character. 

That  the  Emperor  answered  the  Pope,  we  learn  from  the 
second  letter  of  Gregory :  "  I  have,"  says  the  Pope  here, 
"your  letter,  God -protected  Emperor  and  brother  in  Christ, 
by  your  messenger  Kufinus,  and  it  has  quite  overshadowed 
my  life,  because  you  have  not  altered  your  disposition,  but 
persevere  in  evil,  and  refuse  to  follow  the  holy  Fathers.  And 
yet  I  make  my  appeal  not  to  strangers,  but  to  Greek  Fathers. 

1  In  Hardouin  and  Mansi,  by  a  misprint,  the  word  is  StWcrcu.     Baronius  has 
it  correctly,  SiWrcu. 

2  Perhaps  a  German  prince  converted  by  Boniface.     Da  Gauge  (s.v.  Septetus} 
supposes  that  it  should  perhaps  be  called  Mepetus,  which  would  be  identical 
with  Mepe  =  Iberorum  regis  dignitas  ac  appellatio. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  959  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  1  sqq. ;  Baron,  ad  ann.  726. 


296  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

You  write  :  /  am  Emperor  and  priest  at  the  same  time.  Yes  ; 
your  predecessors  were  so  in  fact,  Constantine  the  Great, 
Theodosius  the  Great,  Valentinian  the  Great,  and  Constantine 
(Pogonatus).  They  reigned  as  Emperors  religiously,  and 
held  Synods  in  union  with  the  bishops,  and  built  and  adorned 
churches.  They  showed  by  their  works  that  they  were 
Emperors  and  priests  at  the  same  time;  but  you  have  .  .  . 
not  observed  the  decisions  of  the  Fathers,  but  have  plundered 
and  stripped  the  churches  of  their  ornament.  .  .  .  Men  and 
women  instruct  their  children,  and  the  new  converts  from 
heathenism,  pointing  with  their  fingers  to  the  histories  which 
are  painted  in  the  churches,  they  edify  them  therewith,  and 
give  thereby  to  their  hearts  the  tendency  to  go  upwards. 
But  you  have  taken  this  from  the  people,  and  left  them 
nothing  but  foolish  discourses,  fables,  and  musical  farces.1 
Hear  me,  the  lowly  one,  0  Emperor ;  leave  off  and  follow  the 
holy  Church,  as  you  have  known  it  as  handed  down  to  you. 
Doctrines  are  not  matters  for  the  Emperor,  but  for  the 
bishops,  because  we  have  the  mind  (vovv)  of  Christ.  .  .  . 
There  is  a  difference  between  the  palace  and  the  Church, 
between  Emperors  and  bishops.  Kecognise  this,  and  save 
yourself !  If  you  were  to  be  deprived  of  the  imperial  robes, 
the  purple,  the  diadem,  etc.,  you  would  seem  before  men  to 
be  treated  with  disrespect.  In  the  like  condition  you  have 
placed  the  churches,  in  robbing  them  of  their  adornment. 
As  the  bishop  has  no  right  to  mix  himself  with  the  business 
of  the  palace,  and  to  give  away  the  offices,  so  it  does  not 
belong  to  the  Emperor  to  mix  in  the  inner  affairs  of  the 
Church,  to  choose  the  clergy,  to  administer  the  sacraments, 
etc.  Let  each  one  remain  in  the  place  to  which  God  has 
called  him.  Do  you  know,  0  Emperor,  the  difference  between 
Emperor  and  bishop  ?  When  anyone  fails  in  his  duty  towards 

1  Meaning :  "You  have  left  the  people  that  which  was  hurtful  to  them, 
and  with  this  they  will  henceforth  occupy  themselves.  But  that  which  was 
useful  to  them  you  have  taken  from  them."  Rosier  thinks  (I.e.  S.  491): 
"  According  to  this  passage,  Leo  wanted  to  give  the  people,  and  in  the  church, 
instead  of  the  pictures,  something  else  for  their  instruction."  He  was  think 
ing  of  the  paintings  of  landscapes  and  the  pictures  of  birds  which  the 
Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus  had  set  up  in  place  of  the  religious  pictures, 
for  the  decoration  of  the  walls.  See  below,  sec.  337. 


ORIGIN   OF  THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT  IMAGES.  297 

you,  0  Emperor,  you  take  from  him  his  house  and  property, 
perhaps  also  his  life,  or  you  banish  him.  Not  so  the  bishops. 
If  anyone  sins,  and  he  confesses,  instead  of  a  rope,  they  lay 
upon  his  neck  the  gospel  and  the  cross,  and  instead  of  cast 
ing  him  into  prison,  they  bring  him  into  the  Diaconia  or 
Catechumena  of  the  Church,1  and  impose  upon  him  fasting, 
etc.  If  he  has  repented,  they  administer  to  him  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord.  .  .  .  You  persecute  and  tyrannise  over 
us  with  military  and  physical  force ;  but  we,  without  weapons 
or  earthly  army,  invoke  the  Leader  of  the  armies  of  the 
whole  creation,  Jesus  Christ,  that  He  may  send  you  a  demon, 
according  to  the  words  of  the  apostle  (1  Cor.  v.  5):  ('  I 
will)  deliver  him  to  Satan  for  the  destruction  of  the  flesh, 
that  the  spirit  may  be  saved  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  Jesus.' 
Behold,  0  Emperor,  into  such  misery  you  plunge  yourself. 
How  unhappy  are  we  compared  with  our  forefathers,  who, 
on  account  of  their  good  influence  on  the  Emperors,  will 
obtain  praise  in  the  day  of  judgment,  while  we  shall  be 
forced  to  blush  because  we  cannot  present  our  Emperor  be 
fore  God  glorious  and  rich  in  renown.  Behold,  even  now 
we  exhort  you :  repent  and  return  to  the  truth,  and  honour 
the  holy  Fathers.  You  wrote :  How  comes  it  that  in  the  six 
Councils  nothing  is  said  of  images  ?  But  there  is  nothing 
said  there,  0  Emperor,  of  bread  and  water,  whether  it  shall 
be  eaten  and  drunk,  or  not,  because  here  the  custom  stood 
fast.  So  also  the  custom  of  the  pictures ;  and  the  bishops 
themselves  brought  pictures  with  them  to  the  Councils,  as 
no  pious  man  travelled  without  pictures.  We  exhort  you 
to  be  at  once  bishop  and  Emperor,  as  you  wrote.  If  you  are 
ashamed,  as  Emperor,  to  ascribe  the  guilt  of  your  mistake  to 
yourself  (ah io\oyr)cr ai  eavrov),  then  write  into  all  the  places 
which  you  have  troubled,  that  Pope  Gregory  of  Eome  and 
Germanus  of  Constantinople  made  a  mistake  in  regard  to 
the  images,  and  we  forgive  you  your  false  step,  by  virtue  of 
our  power  to  bind  and  loose.  .  .  .  As  we  must  give  account 
to  Christ,  we  have  exhorted  you;  but  you  have  not  listened 
to  our  lowliness,  nor  to  Germanus,  nor  to  the  holy  Fathers, 

1  Localities  in  the  church,  evidently  for  penitents.      Cf.  Binterim  Dettkw. 
Bd.  v.  Thl.  iii.  S.  13  f. 


298  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

but  have  followed  the  perverters  and  falsifiers  of  the  true 
doctrine.  As  we  have  written,  we  shall  travel  into  the  in 
terior  of  the  West,  in  order  to  administer  holy  baptism.  I  have 
already  sent  bishops  and  clergy  thither,  but  the  leaders  of 
these  countries  are  not  yet  baptized,  and  prefer  to  be  baptized 
by  me.  God  grant  to  you  insight  and  a  change  of  mind." 1 

When  we  compare  the  expressions  of  Theophanes, 
adduced  above  (p.  281),  in  the  letters  of  Gregory  to  the 
Emperor  Leo,  with  the  contents  of  the  two  now  quoted,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Theophanes  had  these  very  letters,  and 
no  others,  in  his  eye.  That  which  he  presents  as  the  chief 
contents  of  the  papal  letters,  "  It  does  not  belong  to  the 
Emperor  to  issue  ordinances  in  regard  to  the  faith,  or  to 
alter  anything  in  the  old  doctrines,"  we  find  not  only  verbally 
in  our  two  letters,  but  it  is  even  a  leading  argument  there. 
If,  notwithstanding,  it  is  attempted  to  distinguish  the  latter 
from  those  which  Theophanes  mentions,  and  to  declare  them 
considerably  later,  this  rests  upon  a  false  assumption  which 
proceeded  from  Pagi,  which  has  perforce  made  its  way  through 
almost  all  later  books,  and  with  this  we  come  to  the  examination 
into  the  time  of  the  composition  of  the  two  papal  letters. 

Baronius  had  placed  them  at  the  beginning  of  the  con 
troversy,  thus  in  the  year  726,  and  had  regarded  them  with 
Theophanes  as  an  answer  to  the  imperial  edict.  This  was 
contested  by  Pagi  (ad  ann.  726,  3-6;  730,  7).  Supporting 
himself  upon  the  life  of  the  Abbot  S.  Stephen  (p.  273),  Pagi 
removes  the  breaking  of  the  figure  of  Christ  over  the  %aX#?} 
TruA.77,  or  in  Chalcoprateia,  into  the  time  after  the  deposition 
of  Germanus,  and  after  the  consecration  of  Anastasius,  thus 
into  the  year  730.  Of  this  event,  so  Pagi  further  argues, 
Pope  Gregory  speaks  in  his  first  letter,  consequently  this 
must  be  placed  deeper  into  the  year  730,  and  accordingly 
the  second  at  the  end  of  the  year  730  or  the  beginning  of 
731,  for  Gregory  n.  died  February  11,  731. 

As  already  remarked,  we  contest  the  foundation  of  this 
whole  argument,  since,  with  Theophanes  and  others,  we  refer 
the  incident  at  the  %aX/c?}  to  the  year  726  ;  and  the  first 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  975  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  13  sqq. ;  Baronius  in  the 
Appendix,  ad  ann.  726. 


ORIGIN   OF   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.  299 

letter  of  Gregory  himself  confirms  us  in  this,  since  he  in 
forms  us  that  the  first  information  of  the  Emperor's  attack 
on  the  images  (thus  before  the  arrival  of  his  edict)  was  given 
by  witnesses  of  that  act  of  violence  who  had  come  into  the 
West.  But  that  the  first  edict  was  published  in  Italy  before 
the  year  728  we  learnt  from  Anastasius  (p.  288). 

Pagi  appeals  a  second  time  to  the  fact  that  Pope  Gregory, 
in  his  first  letter  to  Leo,  speaks  of  Germanus  as  former 
patriarch,  in  the  words  :  "  Tametsi  talem  hdbebas  pontificem  " 
(Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  3).  But  this  Latin  translation  is  well 
known  to  be  only  a  work  of  Fronton  le  Due,  and  the  Greek 
text  has  e^tov  (p.  292),  and  in  neither  letter  of  Gregory  is 
there  any  indication  that  Germanus  had  then  been  deposed. 
Pagi,  in  the  third  place,  refers  to  the  short  chronological 
indications  which  are  found  at  the  beginning  of  the  first 
papal  letter  to  the  Emperor  Leo.  Gregory  says  in  it  that 
he  has  received  the  letter  of  the  Emperor  of  the  14th  In 
die  tion.  As  Leo  became  Emperor  on  March  25  of  the  15th 
Indiction,  as  Theophanes  says,  the  14th  Indiction  would  go 
from  the  1st  of  September  730  to  the  1st  of  September  731, 
and  accordingly  the  answer  of  the  Pope  must  be  referred  to 
the  year  730  (Pagi,  ad  ann.  730,  7).  But  this  argument, 
which  Pagi  brings  forward  with  such  confidence,  we  must 
turn  against  himself.  If  the  Emperor,  in  the  14th  Indiction, 
thus  after  September  1,  730,  wrote  to  the  Pope — and  that 
the  Emperor  did  write  in  the  14th  Indiction,  not  that  the 
Pope  answered  in  this  Indiction,  the  words  of  Gregory  de 
clare  expressly — if  the  Emperor  wrote  so  late,  after  September 
1,  730,  then  a  good  many  weeks  would  elapse  before  this  letter 
arrived  in  Rome,  and  weeks  again  before  the  Pope  despatched 
his  answer,  which  would  not  only  be  well  considered,  but  un 
doubtedly  discussed  in  council  with  his  clergy.  The  year 
730  must  now  have  come  to  an  end.  But  the  papal  answer 
is  now  sent  to  Constantinople,  and  again  weeks  were  necessary 
for  this.  The  Emperor  answers  it,  sends  the  answer  to  Rome, 
and  the  Pope  writes  to  him  the  second  time,  and  all  this 
must  have  taken  place  in  the  year  730  or  in  January  731 
(Pagi,  ad  ann.  730,  10).  Such  despatch  in  official  and  dip 
lomatic  intercourse  would  be  a  rare  thing  even  in  the  times 


300  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

of  railways  and  telegraphs.  I  think,  then,  we  may  venture 
to  maintain:  If  Gregory  n.  died  on  February  11,  731,  and 
Pagi  throws  no  doubt  upon  this,  then  the  facts  so  often 
mentioned  above — the  letter  of  the  Emperor,  its  conveyance 
to  Rome,  the  answer  of  the  Pope,  its  conveyance  to  Constanti 
nople,  the  reply  of  the  Emperor,  its  conveyance  to  Home,  and 
the  second  letter  of  the  Pope  following  upon  this — could 
not  be  pressed  into  the  brief  time  between  September  1,  730, 
and  the  death  of  the  Pope. 

Pope  Gregory  places  the  letters  which  he  received  from 
the  Emperor  in  the  following  order: — That  of  the  14th, 
that  of  the  15th,  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  4th,  5th,  6th,  7th,  8th,  9th 
Indiction.  Pagi  thinks  here  that  the  letter  placed  primo 
loco  of  the  14th  Indiction  was  the  latest  of  the  year 
730,  the  one  following  the  earliest  of  the  year  717,  and 
so  the  series  would  go  on ;  only,  there  is  a  gap  between  the 
9th  Indiction  and  the  14th,  i.e.  from  725  to  730,  as  the 
Emperor,  in  these  five  years,  apparently  had  not  written  to 
the  Pope.1  To  me  it  seems  more  natural  that  Pope  Gregory 
referred  to  all  the  letters  which  he  received  from  the 
Emperor  in  chronological  order,  beginning  with  the  earliest 
and  ending  with  the  latest.  This  latest  would  then  be  that 
of  the  9th  Indiction,  or  of  the  year  726,  and  this  we  regard 
as  the  one  which  contained  the  offensive  remarks  on  the 
images.  This  agrees  perfectly  with  the  date  of  the  be 
ginnings  of  the  controversy  on  the  images,  and  with  the 
expression  of  Gregory,  that  Leo  had  begun  his  follies  in  the 
tenth  year  of  his  government.  This  tenth  regnal  year 
bears  the  Indiction  number  ix.  Gregory  adds :  Ten  letters 
of  the  Emperor  had  been  quite  right,  and  this  number  of 
ten  we  obtain,  even  if  we  take  away  from  the  series  given 
above  the  last  letter  of  the  9th  Indiction.  Moreover,  we 
shall  be  constrained,  by  what  has  been  said,  to  the  same  in- 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  726,  6.  The  argument  of  Pagi  is  disfigured  by  two  mis 
prints.  In  the  passage  cited,  n.  6,  Indiction  xiv.  is  printed  twice  for  xv.  The 
first  time  in  the  words  :  Leo,  raised  to  be  Emperor  on  March  25,  715,  wrote  to 
Pope  Gregory  a  letter,  Indictione  xiv. ,  quse  eo  anno  in  cursu  erat.  It  must  be 
xv.,  for  the  15th  Indiction  ran  from  September  1,  716,  to  September  1,  717  ; 
and  Pagi  puts  it  correctly,  ad  ann.  717,  2  ;  726,  3,  4,  5.  A  similar  mistake  is 
made  towards  the  end  of  the  quotation  of  No.  6. 


FIRST   SYNODS   ON   THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.       301 

ference  as  Baronius.  Thus,  if  the  first  or  earliest  letter  of 
the  Emperor  Leo  to  Pope  Gregory  belongs  to  the  14th  In- 
diction,  then  the  beginning  of  his  reign  must  be  placed  in 
the  year  716,  and  not,  with  Theophanes,  in  71 7.1  And  we 
are  not  afraid  to  do  this,  in  spite  of  the  express  statement 
of  Theophanes,  for  the  latter  reckons  the  regnal  years  of 
Leo  from  the  day  of  his  solemn  entrance  into  Constantinople, 
and  therefore  ascribes  to  the  Emperor  Leo  a  government  of 
24  years  2  months  and  25  days.  Nicephorus,  on  the  con 
trary,  gives  in  his  Chronicon,  25  years  3  months  and  14 
days,  reckoning  from  the  moment  at  which  Leo  rose  against 
the  weak  Theodosius,  and  was  proclaimed  Emperor  in  the 
camp.2  It  is  not,  therefore,  improbable  that  the  Emperor 
Leo,  at  the  very  beginning  of  his  elevation,  and  so  still  in 
the  14th  Indie tion,  i.e.  in  the  year  716,  sought  also  to  win 
for  himself,  in  the  West,  so  powerful  a  Pope,  and  assured 
him,  by  letter,  of  his  orthodoxy,  knowing  well  that  the  Italian 
provinces  of  the  Empire  would  recognise  him  much  more 
readily  if  the  Pope  spoke  for  him. 

Thus  do  we  believe  that  we  have  placed  the  occurrences  of 
the  first  Lustrum  of  the  controversy  about  images  in  their  true 
light,  and,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  correct  chronological  order. 

SEC.  333.    The  first  Synods  on  the  Controversy  about  Images. 

We  assumed  before,  in  the  discussion  of  the  chronological 
question,  that  Pope  Gregory  IL,  after  the  arrival  of  the  im 
perial  edict  against  the  images,  did  not  immediately  return 
an  answer,  but  only  after  mature  reflection  and  consultation. 
This  supposition  finds  itself  confirmed,  not  only  by  the 
statements  of  Cedrenus  and  of  the  Libellus  Synodicus,  which 
speak  of  a  Synod  which  Gregory  now  held  at  Home,  but  also 
Pope  Hadrian  i.  refers  to  such  an  assembly  in  his  letter  to 
Charles  the  Great.3  He  says  that  Pope  Gregory  n.  gave  an 

1  Baronius,  ad  ann.  716,  1. 

2  Cf.    Schlosser,    I.e.    S.    143,    and    the    notes   of    Petavius    to    Nicephori 
Breviarium  de  rebus  post  Mauritium  gestis,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  127  ;  several  other 
witnesses  are  brought  forward   for  the  year   716,   or   Indiction  xiv.,  as   the 
beginning  of  the  government  of  Leo. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  267  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv,  p.  805. 


302  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

address  on  the  permissibility  of  the  veneration  of  images, 
and  he  produces  several  of  the  arguments  used,  e.g.,  in  regard 
to  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  cherubim,  to  Bezaleel  and 
Aholiab,  which  have  so  great  a  similarity  with  some  passages 
of  the  two  letters  of  Gregory  to  the  Emperor,  that  we  may 
suppose  that  Gregory  had  also  delivered  in  the  Synod  the 
principal  part  of  that  which  he  wrote  to  the  Emperor. 
Naturally,  this  Roman  Synod  was  contemporaneous  with  the 
first  letter  of  Gregory  to  the  Emperor  Leo,  and  may  therefore 
properly  be  placed  in  the  year  727.1 

In  immediate  connection  with  this  Eoman  Synod,  the 
Lilellus  Synodicus  places  a  Council  at  Jerusalem  under  the 
Patriarch  Theodore,  which  anathematised  the  new  heresy 
of  the  "  burners  of  the  sanctuary."  As,  however,  Theodore 
demonstrably  had  possession  of  the  see  of  Jerusalem  after  the 
middle  of  the  eighth  century,  and  despatched  a  Synodica  to 
Pope  Paul  i.  (757—767)  in  favour  of  the  images,2  our  Synod 
cannot  be  earlier  than  760. 

In  Eome,  after  the  death  of  Gregory  II.,  the  excellent  priest 
Gregory  ill.,  by  birth  a  Syrian,  was  raised  to  the  papal  throne, 
March  18,  731.  The  whole  people,  says  Anastasius,3  at  the 
funeral  procession,  as  he  was  following  the  bier,  called  him 
with  one  consent  to  be  Pope,  and  constrained  him  to  receive 
this  dignity.  Soon  he  too  endeavoured  to  turn  the  Emperor 
away  from  his  iconoclasm  ;  but  the  priest  George,  whom  he  had 
sent  with  a  letter  to  Constantinople,  had  not  the  courage  to 
deliver  it,  and  returned  back  with  the  business  undone.  The 
Pope  wanted  to  depose  him,  but  the  Synod  which  he  had  con 
voked  at  Eome  on  this  account,  A.D.  7 3 1,4  interceded  for  him,  so 
that  he  was  merely  subjected  to  penance,  and  then  was  sent 
anew  with  the  same  letter  to  Constantinople.  When  he  came 
on  his  journey  to  Sicily,  Sergius,  the  viceroy  there,  at  the 
Emperor's  command,  had  him  seized,  and  kept  him  a  whole 

1  Pagi  assigned  it  naturally  to  the  year  730.     Pagi,  Breviar.  Historico-crit. 
t.  i.  529  sq. 

2  Cf.  the  letter  of  Hadrian  i.  to  Charles  the  Great.     Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  778. 
!!  In  his  Vita  Gregorii  in.,  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  271  sqq. 

4  To  this  Synod  is  related,  as  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  299,  thinks,  a  still  existing 
stone  in  the  Cryptis  Vaticanis,  the  inscription  on  which  commemorates  a  Synod 
at  the  beginning  of  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  in. 


FIRST  SYNODS   ON  THE   CONTROVERSY   ABOUT   IMAGES.       303 

year  long  in  prison.  The  Pope,  however,  full  of  indignation 
at  this,  immediately  celebrated  a  new  Synod  at  the  grave  of  S. 
Peter,  at  which  ninety-three  Western  bishops  were  present, 
among  them  the  Archbishops  Anthony  of  Grado  and  John  of 
Ravenna,1  with  the  priests,  deacons,  and  clerics  of  the  Roman 
Church,  and  many  distinguished  laymen.  It  was  decreed : 
"  If  anyone,  for  the  future,  shall  take  away,  destroy,  dis 
honour,  or  revile  the  pictures  of  the  Lord  or  of  His  Mother,  he 
shall  be  excluded  from  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  and 
the  communion  of  the  Church."  They  all  solemnly  subscribed 
this.  That  this  Synod  was  summoned  on  November  1,  731 
(Indict,  xv.),  we  see  from  the  letter  of  invitation  which  Pope 
Gregory  in.  addressed  to  Archbishop  Anthony  of  Grado  and 
his  suffragans.2 

The  Pope  then  sent  again  a  letter  in  favour  of  the  pictures 
through  the  Defensor  (sc.  pauperum,  an  office  among  the 
Roman  clergy)  Constantine  to  the  Emperor.  But  he  was  also 
imprisoned  in  Sicily,  and  the  letter  taken  from  him.  The 
same  happened  to  the  deputies  of  the  Italian  cities,  who  had 
to  bring  similar  letters  to  Constantinople.  On  the  result  of 
a  fourth  attempt  which  the  Pope  made  to  send  letters,  by 
the  Defensor  Peter,  to  the  Patriarch  Anastasius  and  the  two 
Emperors,  Leo  and  Constantine  (Copronymus,  the  son  of  Leo), 
our  authorities  are  silent.3 

In  order  to  punish  the  Pope,  Rome,  and  Italy  for  their 
opposition  to  iconoclasm,  the  Emperor  Leo  sent  out  a  power 
ful  fleet  against  them.  It  suffered  shipwreck  in  the  Adriatic 
Sea,  and  Leo  now  raised  the  taxes  in  Sicily  and  Calabria, 
and  confiscated  the  patrimonies  of  the  two  apostle  princes,  i.e. 
the  3J  talents  of  gold  coming  annually  to  their  churches  (at 
Rome)  for  the  exchequer.4  Besides,  Leo  now  separated, 
besides  Calabria  and  Sicily,  also  the  Illyrian  provinces  which 

1  Grado  and  Ravenna  were  under  the  Byzantine  Emperor,  but  held  fast  to 
the  veneration  of  images. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  299  sqq.     According  to  a  notice  in  the  Epitome  Chroni- 
corum  Casiiicnsium,  this  Synod  gave  orders  to  the  cities  of  Orleans  and  le  Mans, 
under  penalty  of  excommunication,  to  restore  the  relics  of  S.  Benedict  and  S. 
Scholastica  to  the  monastery  of  Casinum. 

3  Vitse,  Pontif.  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  271  sqq. 

4  Theophanes.  I.e.  p.  631  ;  Walch,  Kctzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  260  f. 


304  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

hitherto  belonged  to  the  patriarchate  of  Borne,  namely,  Old  and 
New  Epirus,  Illyricum,  Macedonia,  Thessaly,  Achaia,  Dacia 
Ripensis  and  Mediterranea,  Moesia,  Dardania,  and  Prsevalis 
(with  its  metropolis  Scodra),  and  subjected  them  to  the  patri 
archate  of  Constantinople,  an  act  of  violence  which  in  great 
measure  became  the  cause  of  the  later  unhappy  schism.1 

SEC.  334.  John  of  Damascus. 

Besides  and  along  with  Pope  Gregory  n.  and  Gregory  in. 
and  the  Patriarch  Germanus  of  Constantinople,  John  of 
Damascus  belonged  to  the  first  and  most  powerful  defenders 
of  images.  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  629)  says  of  him:  "Then 
(729)  lived  at  Damascus,  John  Chrysorrhoas,  the  son  of 
Mansur,  priest  and  monk,  distinguished  for  holiness  and 
knowledge.  ...  In  union  with  the  bishops  of  the  whole  East, 
he  pronounced  anathema  on  the  Emperor  Leo."  This  account 
is  very  summary,  for,  at  the  outbreak  of  the  controversy  on 
images,  John  was  not  yet  either  priest  or  monk,  but  he 
occupied  then  one  of  the  highest  offices  of  State  with  the 
Caliph  who  ruled  over  Syria.  At  the  news  of  the  transactions 
in  Constantinople,  he  prepared  three  discourses  in  defence  of 
the  images  (\6yot,  airoXo^TLKoi),  the  first  at  the  very  begin 
ning  of  the  controversy,  when  it  might  still  be  hoped  that  the 
Emperor  would  be  brought  by  reason  to  a  change  in  his  con 
duct  ;  the  other  two  after  the  deposition  of  the  Patriarch 
Germanus.2  His  ancient  biography  relates  that  the  Emperor 
Leo,  in  order  to  revenge  himself  on  John,  got  up  and  caused  to 
be  sent  to  the  Caliph  a  false  letter,  in  which  John  invited  him 
to  surprise  the  city  of  Damascus.  Not  suspecting  the  decep 
tion,  the  Caliph  caused  the  right  hand  of  the  supposed  traitor 
to  be  hewn  off;  but,  at  the  intercession  of  Mary,  the  piece 
which  had  been  cut  off  grew  on  again  during  the  night,  and 
the  Caliph,  astonished  at  this,  asked  forgiveness  of  the  saint, 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  730,  11,  12  ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  262.    The  latter  properly  remarks 
that  this  happens,  not  as  Pagi  assumes,  in  the  year  730,  but  in   732.     The 
witnesses   of  this  separation  are  the  Popes  Hadrian  i.  and  Nicolas  I.,  from 
whose  letters  Pagi  adduces  the  passages  relating  to  the  subject  verbally. 

2  Extracts  from  these  three  discourses  are  given  by  Schrockh,  Kirchcngcsch. 
Bd.  xx.  S.  537  ff.,  and  Neander,  Kirchengesch.  Bd.  iii.  S.  290  ff. 


THE  EMPEROR   CONSTANTINE   COPRONYMUS.  305 

and  wished  to  appoint  him  again  to  his  high  office.  But  John 
preferred  to  become  a  monk,  and  withdrew  to  Palestine,  into 
the  Laura  of  S.  Sabas.1  That  he  did  the  latter  is  beyond 
doubt. 


SEC.  335.   The  Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus. 

What  the  Emperor  Leo  the  Isaurian  did  in  the  last  years 
of  his  reign  (fJune  18,  741)  in  regard  to  the  images  is 
unknown ;  but  it  is  certain  that  the  conflict  was  carried  on 
by  his  son  Constantine  Copronymus.2  The  widespread  dis 
affection  towards  the  new  Emperor,  whom  his  contemporaries 
depict  in  the  darkest  colours,  encouraged  his  brother-in-law 
Artabasdus,  who  had  married  the  Princess  Anna,  and  at  that 
time  commanded  in  Armenia  against  the  Arabs,  to  make  an 
attempt  upon  the  crown  for  himself.3  Constantine  pretended 
to  take  no  notice,  and  invited  his  brother-in-law  and  his 
sons  to  him,  to  consult  about  plans  for  war,  but  in  truth  to 
seize  him.  But  Artabasdus  saw  through  the  trick,  took  to 
arms,  struck  and  killed  the  renegade  Beser,  who  first  opposed 
him,  and  marched  to  Constantinople,  where  he  had  himself 
solemnly  proclaimed  Emperor.  The  governor  Theophanes, 
to  whom  Constantine  had  entrusted  the  capital,  did  his 
best  for  Artabasdus,  especially  by  circulating  the  false  report 
that  Constantine  was  dead,  and  that  his  brother-in-law  was 
recognised  as  Emperor  in  the  whole  of  the  East.  Partly  from 
his  own  inclination,  partly  to  gain  the  people  over  more  to  him 
self,  Artabasdus  soon  restored  the  veneration  of  images,  and 
the  Patriarch  Anastasius  of  Constantinople,  the  same  who  had 
been  the  tool  of  the  departed  Emperor  in  his  attack  on  the 

1  Vita  Joann.  Damasc.  by  John,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  in  Le  Quien,  Opp. 
S.  Joann.  Damasc.  t.  i.  c.  14  sqq.     Walch,  I.e.  S.  156  ff.,  236  ff. 

2  He  received  the  surname  of  Koirpui>v/j.os  (from  /c67r/3os,  dung)  because,  when 
a  child,  he  dirtied  the  water  at  his  baptism.     Of.  Theophanes,  Chronogr.,  ed. 
Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  615.     He  was  also  called  Cabellinus,  from  his  fondness  for  horses. 

3  The  principal  sources  for  the  history  of  the  Emperor  Constantine  Coprony 
mus  are  his  contemporaries,  Theophanes,  Chronogr  aphia,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  637 
sqq.,    and   Nicephorus,  De  rebus  post  Mauritium  gestis,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  86  sqq. 
Partially  also  the  later  Greek  historians  Cedrenus,  Zonaras,  and  others  from  the 
eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries. 

V. — 2O 


306  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

images,  and  had  so  basely  supplanted  Germanus,  now  took  the 
side  of  the  images  and  for  Artabasdus,  and  solemnly  and 
publicly  declared  the  Emperor  Constantine  to  be  a  detestable 
heretic,  who  had  even  impudently  denied  the  Godhead  of  Christ. 

There  were  now  two  Emperors,  since  Artabasdus  ruled 
in  Europe,  Constantine  in  Asia  ;  but  each  intended,  as  far 
as  possible,  soon  to  supplant  the  other.  Schlosser,  in  his 
history  of  the  iconoclastic  Emperors  (S.  205),  writes:  "The 
Pope  (Zacharias),  however,  acknowledged  the  protector  of  the 
images  (Artabasdus),  and  entered  into  friendly  intercourse 
with  him."  This  is  incorrect,  for  in  truth  Zacharias,  soon 
after  coming  to  the  see,  sent  legates  to  Constantinople  with 
a  letter  to  the  Emperor  Constantine,  and  with  the  com 
mission  to  deliver  the  customary  papal  letter  of  enthronisa- 
tion,  which  was  addressed  to  the  Church  at  Constantinople, 
but  not  to  the  excommunicated  patriarch.  When  the  papal 
legates  arrived  in  Constantinople,  as  we  are  told  by  the 
Eoman  Vitce  Pontificum,  they  found  the  invasor  and  rebellis 
Artabasdus  in  possession  of  the  imperial  power,  then  waited 
until  Constantine  had  regained  the  Empire,  and  were  now  by 
him  quite  friendly  received,  and  sent  back  to  Eome  with 
presents.  In  particular,  the  Emperor  confirmed  to  the  Roman 
Church  the  perpetual  possession  of  the  two  properties  of 
Nymphse  and  Normiae,1  all  which  would  certainly  not  have 
been  done  if  the  Pope  had  taken  part  with  the  usurper.  The 
fact  that  in  Kome,  after  Artabasdus  was  practically  master 
of  Constantinople,  the  documents  were  dated  according  to 
the  years  of  his  reign,  in  noways  proves  that  his  side  was 
taken.  More  correct  than  the  judgment  of  Schlosser  was 
that  of  Walch  (Lc.  Bd.  x.  S.  359,  A.  3). 

With  the  restoration  of  Constantine  came  the  following 
events.  After  the  great  attack  which  Artabasdus,  in  union  with 
his  son  Nicetas,  made  upon  Constantine,  in  order  to  assail  him 
from  two  sides,  from  the  east  and  from  the  west,  and  to  crush 
him,  had  entirely  failed  through  the  delay  of  Nicetas,  Constan 
tine  marched  across  the  Bosporus,  blockaded  Constantinople, 
and,  on  the  2nd  of  November  743,  captured  the  city,  weakened 
by  terrible  famine,  and  took  a  horrible  revenge  on  his  opponents, 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  308. 


THE  MOCK-SYNOD  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.   754.          307 

particularly  on  his  brother-in-law,  his  adherents  and  friends.1 
The  Patriarch  Anastasius  also  was  blinded,  and  led  through  the 
streets  seated  backwards  upon  an  ass.  Nevertheless  Constan- 
tine  replaced  him,  probably  because  he  could  find  no  more  ser 
vile  tool,  and  immediately  with  his  assistance  removed  again 
the  images  which  had  been  restored  under  Artabasdus.  His 
contemporaries  regarded  the  terrible  plague  which  then  raged, 
specially  in  Constantinople  (A.D.  746),  as  a  punishment  of 
this  outrage.2  Whether  special  acts  of  violence  now  took 
place  against  the  friends  of  the  images  is  unknown.  In 
any  case  they  were  afterwards  frightfully  persecuted. 


SEC.   336.   The  Mock-Synod  at  Constantinople,  A.D.   754. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus  now  formed  the  plan 
of  having  the  veneration  of  images  forbidden  also  ecclesiastic 
ally  by  means  of  a  great  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  a  preparation 
for  this  was  made  by  several  Silentia  (assemblies  for  consulta 
tion),  which  he  caused  to  be  held  (A.D.  752)  in  several  cities, 
principally  in  order  to  mislead  the  people  and  gain  them  over 
to  his  impiety,  as  Theophanes  says  (p.  659).  About  this 
time  the  Lombards  under  King  Astolph  rent  off  and  took 
possession  of  one  piece  after  another  of  the  still  Byzantine 
provinces  of  Italy,  and  very  seriously  threatened  Home  itself. 
In  vain  Pope  Stephen  in.  entreated  that  the  Emperor,  in 
accordance  with  his  oft  -  given  promise,  would  send  a  dis 
tinguished  commander  to  Italy,  as  the  need  had  become  very 
great;  but  Copronymus,  without  disturbing  himself,  gave 
an  evasive  answer,  and  preferred  to  fight  the  images  rather 
than  the  Lombards.  Thus  shamefully  abandoned  by  their 
own  master  and  protector,  Pope  Stephen  had  recourse  to 
Pipin,  King  of  the  Franks,3  and,  whilst  with  this  purpose  he 

1  The  day  of  the   taking  of  Constantinople  is  given  by  Theophanes,  I.e. 
p.  647,  quite  exactly  ;  but  the  year  is  doubtful.     Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  743,  18  ; 
Walch,  I.e.  S.  358. 

2  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  653  ;  Nicephorus,  De  rebus  post  Mauritium  gcstis,  ed. 
Bonn,  p.  71. 

3  On  the  journey  of  Stephen  into  France,  Oelsner  treats  at  length  in  the 
Year  -  books  of  the   Frankish    kingdom   under    King   Pipin,    Leipzig   1871, 
S.  115  ff. 


308  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

remained   in   France,  and  anointed   Pipin   with   his   sons   as 
Kings,  the  Emperor,  after  the  death  of  the  Patriarch  Anastasius 
(A.D.  753),  summoned  the  bishops  of  his  Empire  to  a  great 
Synod  in  the  palace  Hieria,  which  lay  opposite  to  Constanti 
nople  on  the  Asiatic  side  of  the  Bosporus,  between  Chrysopolis 
and    Chalcedon,    a   little  to    the   north   of  the   latter.      The 
vacancy  of   the  patriarchate  facilitated  his   plans,  since   the 
hope   of   succeeding   to    this    see    kept   down,  in    the    most 
ambitious  and  aspiring  of  the  bishops,  any  possible  thought  of 
opposition.      The  number  of  those  present  amounted  to   338 
bishops,  and  the  place  of  president  was  occupied  by  Arch 
bishop  Theodosius  of  Ephesus,  already  known  to  us  as  son  of  a 
former  Emperor  Apsimar,  from  the  beginning  an  assistant  in 
the  iconoclastic  movement  (see  above,  sec.  332).     Nicephorus 
(I.e.  .p.    74)    names   him   alone   as   president   of  the    Synod; 
Theophanes,  on   the  contrary  (I.e.   p.   659),  mentions  Bishop 
Pastillas    of    Perge    as    second    president,    and    adds,    "  The 
patriarchates  of  Eome,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and   Jerusalem 
were  not  represented  (the  last  three  were  then  in  the  hands 
of  the  Saracens),  the  transactions  began  on  February  10,  and 
lasted  until  August  8  (in  Hieria)  ;  on  the  latter  date,  however, 
the  Synod  assembled  in  S.  Mary's  Church  in  Blachernae,  the 
northern  suburb    of   Constantinople,   and    the  Emperor  now 
solemnly  nominated  Bishop   Constantine  of  Sylseum,  a  monk, 
as  patriarch  of  Constantinople.      On  August  27,  the  heretical 
decree  (of  the  Synod)  was  published." 

We  see  from  this  that  the  last  session  or  sessions  of  this 
Conciliabulum  were  held  no  longer  in  Hieria,  but  in  the 
Blachernse  of  Constantinople.  We  have  no  complete  Acts  of 
this  assembly,  but  its  very  verbose  opo?  (decree),  together 
with  a  short  introduction,  is  preserved  among  the  Acts  of  the 
seventh  (Ecumenical  Council.  In  its  sixth  section  a  docu 
ment  in  six  tomi  was  read,  bearing  the  title,  "  Eefutation 
of  the  patched  -  up,  falsely  so  -  called  decree  of  the  heap  of 
accusers  of  the  Christians," *  which  contained  both  the 
words  of  the  Conciliabulum  itself  and  their  complete  refuta 
tion,  by  an  anonymous  writer.  Bishop  Gregory  of  Neo- 

1  So  the  seventh  Synod  named  the  iconoclasts,  because  they  calumniously 
accused  the  orthodox  of  idolatry. 


THE   MOCK-SYNOD  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.   754.          309 

Caesarea  read  the  0/305  to  the  Synod,  and  the  deacon  John  its 
refutation.1 

In  the  superscription  of  these  Acts,  the  Conciliabulum 
entitles  itself  "  the  seventh  great  and  (Ecumenical  Synod,"  and 
says  :  "  By  the  grace  and  command  of  the  Emperors  Constan- 
tine  and  (his  four-year-old  son)  Leo,2  the  Council  assembled 
in  the  imperial  residence  city,  in  the  temple  of  the  holy 
and  inviolate  Mother  of  God  and  Virgin  Mary,  surnamed,  in 
Blachernae,  have  decreed  the  following."  Then  follows  their 
cyjo?,  which,  in  its  leading  points,  runs  thus  : — 

"  Satan  misguided  men,  so  that  they  worshipped  the  creature 
instead  of  the  Creator.  The  Mosiac  law  and  the  prophets 
co-operated  to  undo  this  ruin ;  but  in  order  to  save  mankind 
thoroughly,  God  sent  His  own  Son,  who  turned  us  away  from 
error  and  the  worshipping  of  idols,  and  taught  us  the  wor 
shipping  of  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  As  messengers  of  His 
saving  doctrine,  He  left  us  His  apostles  and  disciples,  and  these 
adorned  the  Church,  His  Bride,  with  His  glorious  doctrines. 
This  ornament  of  the  Church  the  holy  Father  and  the  six 
(Ecumenical  Councils  have  preserved  inviolate.  But  Satan 
could  not  endure  the  sight  of  this  adornment,  and  gradually 
brought  back  idolatry  under  the  appearance  of  Christianity. 
As  then  Christ  armed  His  apostles  against  the  ancient  idolatry 
with  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  sent  them  out  into 
all  the  world,  so  has  He  awakened  against  the  new  idolatry 
His  servants  our  faithful  Emperors,  and  endowed  them  with 
the  same  wisdom  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Impelled  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  could  no  longer  be  witnesses  of  the  Church  being 

1  Printed  in  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  205-363  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  325-443.     In 
both  collections  the  very  words  of  the  Conciliabulum  are  given  in  italics.     The 
old  Latin  translation  of  these  Acts,  by  Anastasius,  is  found  in  Mansi,   I.e. 
p.  652  sqq.,  and  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  680  sqq.     Schlosser,  who  had  a  collection  of 
the   Councils   before   him,    that   of  Coleti,  but   was   not   familiar  with  it,   is 
acquainted  only  with  this  translation,  and  knows  nothing  of  the  original  text, 
which,  however,  he  says,  is  not  necessary,  "as  here  nothing  depends  upon  a 
word"  (!)  Geschichte  der  bildersturmenden  Kaiser,  S.  214. 

2  Constantino  was  married  (A.D.    733)   by  his  father,   from  policy,    to  a 
princess  of  the  Khazars,  who  received  in  baptism  the  name  of  Irene.     She  must 
not  be  confounded  with   her  namesake  and  daughter-in-law,  'the  celebrated 
Irene  the  friend   of  images.     But  she  was   also   a   hater   of  iconoclasm.     Cf. 
Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  631. 


310  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

laid  waste  by  the  deception  of  demons,  and  summoned  the 
sanctified  assembly  of  the  God-beloved  bishops,  that  they 
might  institute  at  a  Synod  a  scriptural  examination  into 
the  deceitful  colouring  of  pictures,  which  draws  down  the 
spirit  of  man  from  the  lofty  worship  of  God  to  the  low  and 
material  worship  of  the  creature,  and  that  they,  under  divine 
guidance,  might  express  their  view  on  the  subject. 

Our  holy  Synod  therefore  assembled,  and  we,  its  338 
members,  follow  the  older  synodal  decrees,  and  accept  and 
proclaim  joyfully  the  dogmas  handed  down,  principally  those 
of  the  six  holy  (Ecumenical  Synods  at  Nicsea,  etc.  After  we 
had  carefully  examined  their  decrees  under  the  guidance  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  we  found  that  the  sinful  art  of  painting 
blasphemed  the  fundamental  doctrine  of  our  salvation,  namely, 
the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  and  contradicted  the  six  holy 
Synods.  These  condemned  Nestorius  because  he  divided 
Christ  into  two  sons,  and  on  the  other  side,  Arius,  Dioscurus, 
Eutyches,  and  Severus,  because  they  maintained  a  mingling  of 
the  two  natures  of  the  one  Christ.  It  is  the  unanimous 
doctrine  of  all  the  holy  Fathers  and  of  the  six  (Ecumenical 
Synods,  that  no  one  may  imagine  any  kind  of  separation  or 
mingling  in  opposition  to  the  unsearchable,  unspeakable,  and 
incomprehensible  union  of  the  two  natures  in  the  one 
hypostasis  or  person.  What  avails,  then,  the  folly  of  the 
painter,  who  from  sinful  love  of  gain  depicts  that  which 
should  not  be  depicted,  that  is,  with  his  polluted  hands  he 
tries  to  fashion  that  which  should  only  be  believed  in  the 
heart  and  confessed  with  the  mouth  ?  He  makes  an  image 
and  calls  it  Christ.  The  name  Christ  signifies  God  and  man. 
Consequently  it  is  an  image  of  God  and  man,  and  conse 
quently  he  has  in  his  foolish  mind,  in  his  representation  of 
the  created  flesh,  depicted  the  Godhead  which  cannot  be 
represented,  and  thus  mingled  what  should  not  be  mingled. 
Thus  he  is  guilty  of  a  double  blasphemy,  the  one  in  making 
an  image  of  the  Godhead  and  the  other  by  mingling  the 
Godhead  and  manhood.  Those  fall  into  the  same  blasphemy 
who  venerate  the  image,  and  the  same  woe  rests  upon  both, 
because  they  err  as  did  Arius,  Dioscurus,  and  Eutyches. 
When,  however,  they  are  blamed  for  undertaking  to  depict 


THE   MOCK-SYNOD  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.   754.          311 

the  divine  nature  of  Christ,  which  should  not  be  depicted,  they 
take  refuge  in  the  excuse :  We  represent  only  the  flesh  of 
Christ  which  we  saw  and  handled.  But  that  is  a  Nestorian 
error.  For  it  should  be  considered  that  that  flesh  was  also 
flesh  of  God  the  Logos,  without  any  separation,  perfectly 
assumed  by  the  divine  nature  and  made  wholly  divine.  How 
could  it  now  be  separated  and  represented  apart  ?  So  is  it 
with  the  human  soul  of  Christ  which  mediates  between  the 
Godhead  of  the  Son  and  the  human  flesh.  As  the  human  flesh 
is  at  the  same  time  flesh  of  God  the  Logos,  so  is  the  human 
soul  also  soul  of  God  the  Logos,  both  together,  since  the  soul 
is  made  divine, and  the  divinity  of  both,  of  body  and  soul,  cannot 
be  separated.  Just  as  the  soul  of  Christ  separated  from  His 
body  by  His  voluntary  death,  so  the  Godhead  remained  as 
well  with  the  soul  as  with  the  body  of  Christ.  How,  then, 
do  the  fools  venture  to  separate  the  flesh  from  the  Godhead, 
and  represent  it  by  itself  as  the  image  of  a  mere  man  ? 
They  fall  into  the  abyss  of  impiety,  since  they  separate  the 
flesh  from  the  Godhead,  ascribe  to  it  a  subsistence  of  its  own, 
a  personality  of  its  own,  which  they  depict,  and  thus  introduce 
a  fourth  person  into  the  Trinity.  Moreover,  they  represent,  as 
not  being  made  divine,  that  which  has  been  made  divine  by  being 
assumed  by  the  Godhead.  Whoever,  then,  makes  an  image  of 
Christ,  either  depicts  the  Godhead  which  cannot  be  depicted, 
and  mingles  it  with  the  manhood  (like  the  Monophysites),  or 
he  represents  the  body  of  Christ  as  not  made  divine  and 
separate  and  as  a  person  apart,  like  the  Nestorians.  The 
only  admissible  figure  of  the  humanity  of  Christ,  however, 
is  bread  and  wine  in  the  holy  Supper.  This  and  no  other 
form,  this  and  no  other  type,  has  He  chosen  to  represent  His 
humanity.  Bread  He  ordered  to  be  brought,  but  not  a 
representation  of  the  human  form,  so  that  idolatry  might 
not  arise.  And  as  the  body  of  Christ  is  made  divine,  so 
also  this  figure  of  the  body  of  Christ,  the  bread,  is  made 
divine  by  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  it  becomes  the 
divine  body  of  Christ  by  the  service  of  the  priest. 

The  evil  custom  of  assigning  false  names  to  the  images 
(e.g.,  to  say :  That  is  Christ)  does  not  come  down  from  Christ 
and  the  apostles  and  the  holy  Fathers ;  nor  have  these  left 


312  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

behind  them  any  prayer  by  which  an  image  should  be 
hallowed  or  made  anything  else  than  ordinary  matter.  If, 
however,  some  say,  we  might  be  right  in  regard  to  the  images 
of  Christ,  on  account  of  the  mysterious  union  of  the  two 
natures,  but  it  is  not  right  for  us  to  forbid  also  the  images  of 
Mary,  of  the  prophets,  apostles,  and  martyrs,  who  were  mere 
men  and  did  not  consist  of  two  natures ;  we  may  reply,  first 
of  all :  If  those  fall  away,  there  is  no  longer  need  of  these. 
But  we  will  also  consider  what  may  be  said  against  these  in 
particular.  Christianity  has  rejected  the  whole  of  heathenism, 
and  so  not  merely  heathen  sacrifices,  but  also  the  heathen 
worship  of  images.  The  saints  live  on  eternally  with  God, 
although  they  have  died.  If  anyone  thinks  to  call  them 
back  again  to  life  by  a  dead  art,  discovered  by  the  heathen, 
he  makes  himself  guilty  of  blasphemy.  Who  dares  attempt 
with  heathenish  art  to  paint  the  Mother  of  God,  who  is 
exalted  above  all  heavens  and  the  saints  ?  It  is  not  per 
mitted  to  Christians,  who  have  the  hope  of  the  resurrection, 
to  imitate  the  customs  of  demon-worshippers,  and  to  insult 
the  saints,  who  shine  in  so  great  glory,  by  common  dead  matter. 

Moreover,  we  can  prove  our  view  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  Fathers.  In  the  former  it  is  said  :  "  God  is  a  Spirit : 
and  they  that  worship  Him  must  worship  Him  in  spirit  and 
in  truth"  (S.  Jno.  iv.  24);  and:  "Thou  shalt  not  make  thee 
any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is  in 
heaven  above,  or  that  is  in  the  earth  beneath  "  (Deut.  v.  8) ; 
on  which  account  God  spoke  to  the  Israelites  on  the  Mount, 
from  the  midst  of  the  fire,  but  showed  them  no  image  (Deut. 
v.  4).  Further :  "  They  changed  the  glory  of  the  incor 
ruptible  God  into  an  image  made  like  to  corruptible  man, 
.  .  .  and  served  the  creature  more  than  the  Creator  "  (Eom. 
i.  23,  25).  (Several  other  passages  are  even  less  to  the  point.) 

The  same  is  taught  also  by  the  holy  Fathers.  (The  Synod 
appeals  to  a  spurious  passage  from  Epiphanius,  and  to  one 
inserted  into  the  writings  of  Theodotus  of  Ancyra,  a  friend 
of  S.  Cyril,  to  utterances — in  no  way  striking — of  Gregory 
of  Nazianzus,  of  SS.  Chrysostom,  Basil,  Athanasius,  of 
Amphilochius  and  Eusebius  Pamphili,  from  his  letter  to 
the  Empress  Constantia,  who  had  asked  him  for  a  picture 


THE  MOCK-SYNOD  AT   CONSTANTINOPLE,  A.D.   754.          313 

of  Christ)  Supported  by  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the 
Fathers,  we  declare  unanimously,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy 
Trinity,  that  there  shall  be  rejected  and  removed  and  cursed 
out  of  the  Christian  Church  every  likeness  which  is  made 
out  of  any  material  whatever  by  the  evil  art  of  painters. 
Whoever  in  future  dares  to  make  such  a  thing,  or  to  vener 
ate  it,  or  set  it  up  in  a  church  or  in  a  private  house,  or 
possesses  it  in  secret,  shall,  if  bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  be 
deposed,  if  monk  or  layman,  anathematised  and  become  liable 
to  be  tried  by  the  secular  laws  as  an  adversary  of  God  and 
an  enemy  of  the  doctrines  handed  down  by  the  Fathers.  At 
the  same  time  we  ordain  that  no  incumbent  of  a  church  shall 
venture,  under  pretext  of  destroying  the  error  in  regard  to 
images,  to  lay  his  hands  on  the  holy  vessels  in  order  to  have 
them  altered,  because  they  are  adorned  with  figures.1  The 
same  is  provided  in  regard  to  the  vestments  of  churches, 
cloths,  and  all  that  is  dedicated  to  divine  service.  If,  how 
ever,  the  incumbent  of  a  church  wishes  to  have  such  church 
vessels  and  vestments  altered,  he  must  do  this  only  with  the 
assent  of  the  holy  (Ecumenical  patriarch  (of  Constantinople) 
and  of  our  pious  Emperors.  So  also  no  prince  or  secular 
official  shall  rob  the  churches,  as  some  have  done  in  former 
times,  under  the  pretext  of  destroying  images.  All  this  we 
ordain,  believing  that  we  speak  apostolically,  and  that  we 
"have  the  Holy  Spirit"  (1  Cor.  vii.  40). 

To  this  o/3o?  they  added  immediately  a  series  of  ana- 
thematisms,  in  the  first  of  which  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  the 
six  (Ecumenical  Councils  is  briefly  and  accurately  set  forth. 
Then,  passing  on  to  their  own  subject,  they  declare:  "  (1)  If 
anyone  ventures  to  represent  the  divine  image  (xapaKrrjp, 
Heb.  i.  3)  of  the  Logos  after  the  Incarnation  with  material 
colours,  let  him  be  anathema !  (2)  If  anyone  ventures  to 
represent  in  human  figures,  by  means  of  material  colours,  by 
reason  of  the  Incarnation,  the  substance  or  person  (ousia  or 
hypostasis)  of  the  Word,  which  cannot  be  depicted,  and  does 
not  rather  confess  that  even  after  the  Incarnation  He  (the 
Logos)  cannot  be  depicted,  let  him  be  anathema !  (3)  If 

1  It  seems   that  many  seized   the  opportunity  of  making  more  than  an 
alteration .' 


314  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

anyone  ventures  to  represent  the  hypostatic  union  of  the  two 
natures  in  a  picture,  and  calls  it  Christ,  and  thus  falsely 
represents  a  union  of  the  two  natures,  etc. !  (4)  If  anyone 
separates  the  flesh  united  with  the  person  of  the  Logos  from 
it,  and  endeavours  to  represent  it  separately  in  a  picture,  etc. ! 
(5)  If  anyone  separates  the  one  Christ  into  two  persons,  and 
endeavours  to  represent  Him  who  was  born  of  the  Virgin 
separately,  and  thus  accepts  only  a  relative  (o^ert/a?)  union 
of  the  natures,  etc. !  (6)  If  anyone  represents  the  flesh  made 
divine  by  its  union  with  the  Logos  in  a  picture,  and  thus 
separates  it  from  the  Godhead,  etc. !  (7)  If  anyone  endeavours 
to  represent,  by  material  colours,  God  the  Logos  as  a  mere 
man,  who,  although  bearing  the  form  of  God,  yet  has  assumed 
the  form  of  a  servant  in  His  own  person,  and  thus  endeavours 
to  separate  Him  from  His  inseparable  Godhead,  so  that  he 
thereby  introduces  a  quaternity  into  the  Holy  Trinity,  etc. ! 
(8)  If  anyone  shall  endeavour  to  represent  the  forms  of  the 
saints  in  lifeless  pictures  with  material  colours  which  are  of 
no  value, — for  this  notion  is  erroneous  and  introduced  by  the 
devil, — and  does  not  rather  represent  their  virtues  as  living 
images  in  himself,  etc. ! " 

After  they  had  added  some  orthodox  sentences  on  the 
veneration  and  invocation  of  the  saints,  etc.,  they  conclude 
thus :  "  If  anyone  does  not  accept  this  our  Holy  and 
(Ecumenical  seventh  Synod,  let  him  be  anathema  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  all  the  seven 
(Ecumenical  Synods  !  Let  no  one  set  forth  another  faith  ! 
.  .  .  Thus  we  all  believe ;  this  we  voluntarily  subscribe ; 
this  is  the  faith  of  the  apostles.  Many  years  to  the 
Emperors  !  They  are  the  lights  of  orthodoxy  !  Many  years 
to  the  orthodox  Empress !  God  preserve  your  Empire ! 
You  have  now  more  firmly  proclaimed  the  inseparability  of 
the  two  natures  of  Christ !  You  have  banished  all  idolatry  ! 
You  have  destroyed  the  heresies  of  Germanus  (of  Constanti 
nople),  George,1  and  Mansur  (/Aavcrovp,  John  Damascene). 

1  In  the  confutation  appended  to  these  Acts  of  the  Conciliabulum  which 
was  read  at  Nicaea,  it  is  mentioned  that  George  was  born  in  Cyprus,  renounced 
his  property,  lived  in  apostolic  poverty,  and  bore  patiently  much  ill-treatment 
(because  be  defended  the  images).  He  was  probably  a  monk,  but  we  know 


CARRYING  OUT  OF  THE  SYNODAL  DECREES.    ABBOT  STEPHEN.     315 

Anathema  to  Germanus,  the  double-minded,1  and  worshipper 
of  wood  !  Anathema  to  George,  his  associate,  to  the  falsifier 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  Fathers !  Anathema  to  Mansur,  who 
has  an  evil  name  and  Saracen  opinions  !  To  the  betrayer  of 
Christ  and  the  enemy  of  the  Empire,  to  the  teacher  of 
impiety,  the  perverter  of  Scripture,  Mansur,  anathema ! 
The  Trinity  has  deposed  these  three ! " 

The  Libelhis  Synodicus  states  that  the  Emperor  Constantine 
at  this  Synod  also  denied  the  intercessions  of  the  saints  and 
burnt  the  relics.2  Similarly,  it  is  said  in  the  history  of 
the  life  of  the  Abbot  S.  Stephen,  that  the  Synod  uttered 
blasphemies  against  the  saints  and  the  immaculate  Mother  of 
God,  as  if  they  could  not  help  us  after  their  death ; 3  but,  as 
we  saw  above,  everyone  was  expressly  anathematised  by  the 
Synod,  who  rejected  the  invocation  of  Mary  and  denied  her 
intercession.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  true  that  the 
Emperor,  in  his  own  person,  subsequently  did  that  which 
those  two  documents  ascribe  to  the  Conciliabulum,  and  that 
their  statement  rests  only  upon  an  interchange  of  names. 

SEC.  337.   Carrying  out  of  the  Synodal  Decrees.    Abbot  Stephen. 

The  immediate  consequence  of  this  Synod  was  that  the 
images  were  everywhere  removed  from  the  churches,  many  were 
burnt,  the  wall-pictures  and  mosaics  smeared  over  with  chalk. 
In  a  special  manner  the  Vita  S.  Stephani  complains  of  the 
devastation  of  the  splendid  Church  of  S.  Mary  in  Blachernae, 
on  the  walls  of  which  were  represented  the  Incarnation  of 
Christ  and  His  miracles  and  acts,  until  His  ascension  into 
heaven  and  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  order  not 

nothing  more  about  him.  Baronius  (ad  ann.  754,  32)  confounded  him  with 
Bishop  George  of  Antioch,  who  was  certainly  exiled  on  account  of  his  defence 
of  the  images,  but  not  until  the  following  century,  by  the  Emperor  Leo  the 
Armenian.  Cf.  Pagi,  ad  ann.  754.  20.  All  that  has  been  discovered  on  this 
George  is  collected  by  Leo  Allatius  in  his  Diatriba  de  Georgiis,  printed  in  the 
Biblioth.  Grasca  of  Fabricius,  ed.  Harless,  t.  xii.  p.  14  sqq.  In  the  older 
edd.  t.  x. 

1  Perhaps  with  reference  to  the  fact  that  he  held  with  the  Monothelite 
under  the  Emperor  Philippicus  Bardanes.     Cf.  above,  p.  257  f. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  578  ;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  p.  1542. 

3  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  342  f. 


316  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

to  leave  the  walls  bare,  they  were  now  decorated  with  land 
scapes,  with  pictures  of  trees  and  birds,  or,  as  the  Vita 
Stephani  says,  turned  into  a  bird-cage  and  fruit  magazine. 
The  same  took  place  in  all  the  public  buildings  and  palaces, 
e.g.  that  of  the  patriarch.1  The  sacred  pictures  were 
destroyed,  but  "  satanic  representations  of  ridings,  hunts, 
plays,  horse-races,  and  the  like,  were  held  in  honour  and 
beatified. " 2 

At  the  same  time,  the  Emperor  demanded  of  all  the 
bishops  and  of  the  most  distinguished  monks  a  written 
assent  to  the  decree  of  his  Synod.  We  do  not  learn  that  one 
single  man  among  the  bishops  and  secular  clergy  of  the 
whole  [Byzantine]  kingdom  refused ;  but  so  much  the  more 
earnestly  was  opposition  made  by  many  monks.3  That  the 
bishops  of  the  East,  who  were  no  longer  under  Byzantium,  in 
no  way  assented,  we  shall  see  later  on  (sec.  340).  Alarmed  by 
the  demand  of  the  Emperor,  the  monks  of  the  neighbourhood 
of  Constantinople  and  from  Bithynia  gradually  betook  them 
selves  to  the  celebrated  Abbot  S.  Stephen,  on  the  mountain 
of  S.  Auxentius,  in  order  to  take  counsel  with  him.  Born 
in  the  year  715,  Stephen  was,  while  still  quite  young,  brought 
by  his  parents  to  the  anchorite  John  on  the  mountain  of 
S.  Aurelius  over  against  Constantinople.  After  he  had  spent 
a  long  time  in  this  monastery,  and  had  already  obtained  a 
great  fame  for  holiness,  he  obtained,  as  a  recluse,  a  cave  on 
the  top  of  this  mountain,  above  the  monastery,  and  hither 
came  now  the  monks  from  the  neighbourhood  of  Constanti 
nople.  Stephen  counselled  them  to  give  way  before  the 
violence  of  the  Emperor,  and  to  go  into  neighbourhoods  which 
had  not  yet  been  infected  by  heresy,  namely,  into  the 
mountains  on  the  Pontus  Euxinus,  which  were  the  boundary 
of  Scythia,  the  neighbourhoods  of  the  Bosporus,  Cherson, 
Mcopsis,  those  on  the  Parthenic  sea  (east  end  of  the 
Mediterranean),  to  Reggio,  Naples,  Italy,  etc.  Abbot  Stephen 
added :  Of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  he  will  not  make 

1  Niceph.,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  85. 

2  Vita  Stephani  in  the  Analecta  Graeca  of  the  Benedictines  of  S.  Maur,  1686, 
t.  i.  p.  445  f.  and  454.     Of.  Walch,  I.e.  S.  340  ff.,  and  Pagi,  ad  ami.  754,  13. 

3  Zonaras,  Annal.  lib.  xv.  in  Walch,  I.e.  S.  337. 


CHURCH   STATES   THREATENED   BY   THE   GREEKS.  317 

mention,  as  the  bishops  of  these  cities  have  declared  them 
selves  in  writing  as  opposed  to  the  Emperor,  and  have  called 
him  an  apostate  and  heresiarch  (see  below,  sec.  340).  So 
also  S.  John  of  Damascus  has  not  ceased  to  oppose  him  as  a 
second  Mahomet,  burner  of  images,  and  enemy  of  the  saints.1 
The  monks  followed  the  counsel  of  S.  Stephen,  and  in 
great  numbers  forsook  the  residence  and  its  neighbourhood. 
Those  left  behind  concealed  themselves.  Many  came  to 
Borne,  and  the  new  Pope,  Paul  I.  (since  758),  for  this  reason 
ordered  that  in  Eome  the  Psalms  should  also  be  sung  in 
Greek,  i.e.  that  the  Greeks  who  had  come  there  might  say 
their  office  in  their  own  manner.2 


SEC.  338.   The  States  of  the  Church  threatened  from  the 
beginning  by  the  Greeks. 

The  greater  acts  of  violence  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor, 
in  destroying  the  images  and  persecuting  those  who  venerated 
them,  meet  us  generally  for  the  first  time  from  the  years 
761  and  763.  Apparently  the  two  unlucky  wars  against 
the  Bulgarians  in  the  years  756  and  760,3  and  the  anxieties 
respecting  Italy,  had  from  prudential  reasons  made  a  tem 
porary  pause  in  the  iconoclastic  fury.  In  Italy,  in  the  year 
755,  this  great  change  had  taken  place,  that  the  King  of  the 
Franks,  Pipin  the  Short,  took  away  from  the  Lombard  Astolph 
the  exarchate  of  Eavenna  and  Pentapolis,  and  had  made  of 
these  provinces,  formerly  subject  to  the  Byzantines,  a  present 
to  S.  Peter,  i.e.  to  the  Eoman  Church.  The  attempt  of  the 
Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus,  by  means  of  two  am 
bassadors  whom  he  sent  to  Pipin,  to  get  back  those  lands, 
miscarried ;  since  Pipin,  as  is  well  known,  declared :  "  The 
Franks  had  not  shed  their  blood  for  the  Greeks,  but  for  S. 
Peter  and  the  salvation  of  their  souls,  and  he  would  not,  for 
all  the  gold  in  the  world,  take  back  his  promise  made  to  the 
Eoman  Church."  Whether  the  Pope  at  this  time  came  into 
the  secular  possession  of  the  city  and  the  Duchy  of  Eome 

1  Vita  Stephani,  I.e.  t.  i.  pp.  401  and  447.     Also  in  Pagi,  ad  ann.  754,  14. 

2  Baronius,  ad  ann.  761,  15. 

:!  Cf.  Theophanes,  I.e.  pp.  662  and  664  sq. 


318  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

is  a  contested  point,  the  decision  of  which  we  are  not  re 
quired  to  settle.  It  is  certain,  on  the  contrary,  that  the 
Byzantine  Emperor,  in  the  years  757  and  758,  sent  am 
bassadors  both  to  Pipin  and  to  Desiderius,  the  new  King  of  the 
Lombards,  and  presented  the  former  with  an  organ,  the  first 
that  came  into  the  West,  in  order,  by  the  help  of  these  two 
princes,  to  come  again  into  possession  of  the  exarchate  and 
of  Pentapolis.  With  the  same  object,  his  emissaries  culti 
vated  the  people  of  Eavenna  and  the  neighbourhood,  and  a 
fleet,  which  he  fitted  out  either  at  this  time  or  somewhat 
later  (A.D.  764),  was  intended  to  give  effect  by  force  to  his 
demands.1  Pope  Paul  i.,  who  then  occupied  the  holy  see, 
took  every  pains  to  work  in  opposition  to  the  Byzantines, 
and  to  obtain  as  a  perpetual  adherent  King  Pipin,  who,  with 
the  title  of  Patrician,  had  undertaken  the  duty  of  protection 
over  the  Eoman  Church.  His  position  was  in  this  respect 
so  much  the  more  difficult,  as  his  own  legate  in  France,  the 
Cardinal  Priest  Marinus,  had  then  concluded  a  serious  friend 
ship  with  the  Byzantine  ambassador.2  In  one  of  the  letters 
which  Pope  Paul  now  addressed  to  Pipin,  he  assured  him 
that  it  was  the  affair  of  the  images  that  was  the  principal 
cause  of  the  great  anger  of  the  Greeks  against  Borne.3 

SEC.  339.   The  Cruelties  of  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Copronymus. 

From  the  year  761  the  venerators  of  images  were  per 
secuted  with  a  cruelty  which  recalls  the  times  of  Diocletian, 
and  there  goes  through  all  our  historical  sources  a  cry  of 
horror  on  account  of  it.  Some  new  light  was  brought  into 

1  The  uncertainty  in  the  chronology  arises  from  this,  that  the  letters  from 
the  Popes  to  Charles  Martel,  Pipin  the  Short,  and  Charles  the  Great,  collected 
in  the  Codex  Carolinus,  have  no  chronological  data.     Pagi  and  Muratori  differ 
widely  in  their  attempts  to  fix  the  date  of  each  letter.     Cf.  Muratori,  Hist,  of 
Italy,  vol.  iv.     The  best  edited  is  the  Codex  Carolinus  (A.D.  791),  in  Cenni, 
Monumenta  Dominationis  Pontificise,  etc.,  Rom.  1760,  reprinted  in  the  ninety- 
eighth  volume  of  the  Cursus  Patrol,  of  Migne,  also  in  Mansi,  Collect.  Condi. 
t.  xii.  p.  282  sqq.  ;  only  that  here  the  collecion  is  broken  up,  and  each  single 
piece  introduced  under  the  letters  of  the  Pope  in  question. 

2  Pagi,  ad  ann.  758,  3  sqq.  3  Pagi,  ad  ann.  758,  1. 


CRUELTIES   OF  THE  EMPEROR   CONSTANTINE   COPRONYMUS.      319 

the  history  of  these  persecutions,  particularly  a  later  chronolo 
gical  arrangement,  by  the  new  volume  of  the  Bollandists,  which 
appeared,  A.D.  1853,  in  the  treatise  de  S.  Andrea  Cretensi,  dido 
in  Crisi,  by  which  several  errors,  which  from  early  times  had 
passed  into  all  the  books,  were  corrected.1  The  Bollandists 
discovered  two  hitherto  unprinted  and  mutually  independent 
martyrologies  of  S.  Andrew,  whilst  hitherto  only  a  Latin 
translation  of  the  second  of  them  (in  Surius)  had  been 
known.2  From  these  two  martyrologies  and  several  ancient 
Greek  Synaxaria  ( =  festal  kalendars),  compared  with  the 
Vita  S.  Stephani,  it  results  that  Theophanes  confounded  two 
of  the  most  distinguished  martyrs  of  the  time  of  Copronymus, 
Andrew  and  Peter;  or,  more  exactly,  not  themselves,  but 
only  their  names,  for  everything  else  which  he  tells  respecting 
them  is  perfectly  right,  if  only  we  exchange  the  names. 

As  earliest  martyr  he  mentions,  in  the  twenty-first  year 
of  the  Emperor,  6253  of  the  world,  "  the  venerable  monk, 
Andrew  Kalybites,"  whom  "  Constantine  caused  to  be  put  to 
death  by  scourging  in  the  Blachernae,  in  the  circus  of  S.  Mamas, 
reproaching  him  with  impiety.  His  corpse  was  cast  into  the 
water;  but  his  sisters  brought  him  up  and  buried  him  in 
the  market  of  the  Emporium.3  Instead  of  Andrew  Kalybites, 
we  should  here  read  Peter  Kalybites  (i.e.  inhabitant  of  a 
Ka\vj3r)  or  hut),4  of  whom  it  is  said  in  the  Vita  S.  Stephani 
(I.e.  p.  507):  "I  make  mention  of  that  holy  monk  Peter, 
who  dwelt  as  a  recluse  at  Blachernse,  and  was  frightfully 
beaten  with  the  tendons  of  oxen,  and  killed  in  the  presence 
of  the  Emperor,  because  he  had  spoken  of  him  as  a  Dacian 
(Julian)  and  a  sacrilegious  man."  To  the  same  effect  say  the 
Synaxaria :  "  Peter,  who  dwelt  in  the  Blachernae,  dies,  beaten 

1  Ada  Sanctorum,  Octobris,  t.  viii.  illustrata  a  Josepho  van  Hecke,  Benja- 
mino  Bossue,  Victors  de  Buck,  Antonio  Tinnebrock,  S.  J.,  presbyteris  theologis, 
Bruxellis  1853,  p.  124  sqq. 

2  Pagi  (ad  ann.  761,  2)  denied  that  the  second  Greek  martyrology  proceeded 
from  Metaphrastes,  appealing  to  Leo  Allatius,  de  Simeonionibus.     But  Allatius, 
at  p.  128  of  this  work,  ascribes  it  expressly  to  Metaphrastes,  as  the  Bollandists 
(I.e.  p.  126)  remark. 

3  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  667. 

4  On  the  Kalybitae,  cf.  the  remarks  of  Bollandus  at  January  15  of  the  Ada 
Sanctorum. 


320  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

with  the  tendons  of  oxen."  1  That  this  martyrdom  is  to  be 
placed  at  the  16th  of  May  761,  and  not  in  the  year  762, 
as  might  be  inferred  from  Theophanes,  is  shown  by  the  new 
Bollandists  (I.e.  p.  129),  by  reference  to  the  eclipse  of  the 
sun  mentioned  by  Theophanes  himself  (p.  665),  which  pre 
ceded  that  martyrdom  about  a  year,  and,  according  to  the 
astronomical  tables,  took  place,  not  in  August  761,  as  Theo 
phanes  states,  but  in  the  year  760. 

The  Bollandists  might  have  found  another  proof  on  their 
side  on  the  same  page  of  Theophanes,  since  Easter  fell  on  the 
6th  of  April,  not  in  the  year  of  the  world  6252  ( =  761),  but 
in  the  year  before,  and  the  execution  of  the  Kalybites  belongs 
to  the  year  immediately  following.  The  day  of  the  month 
of  his  martyrdom  the  Bollandists  found  in  the  old  Synaxaria. 

Soon  after  Peter  Kalybites,  probably  on  the  7th  of  June 
761,  John,  the  superior  of  the  monastery  of  Monagria,  was 
fastened  into  a  sack  and  cast  into  the  sea,  because  he  would 
not  tread  under  foot  a  picture  of  the  Mother  of  God.  This  is 
also  related  by  the  Synaxaria  and  the  biography  of  S.  Stephen.2 

The  most  famous  martyr  of  the  time  of  Copronymus  was 
the  Abbot  S.  Stephen  (see  sec.  337),  generally  designated  as 
o  fe'o?,  with  reference  to  the  protomartyr  Stephen.  His 
ancient  biographer  (in  the  Analecta,  I.e.  p.  546  ff.)  says:  Soon 
after  the  end  of  the  Conciliabulum  held  by  Constantine  (in 
fact,  not  until  the  year  763),  the  Emperor  sent  the  patrician 
Callistus,  a  man  of  ability,  but  one  who  was  zealously  de 
voted  to  the  new  heresy  (iconoclasm),  to  the  mount  of  S. 
Auxentius,  in  order  to  induce  Stephen  to  subscribe  the 
synodal  decree.  Callistus  accomplished  his  commission  ;  but 
Stephen  declared :  The  Synod  having  brought  forward  a 
heretical  doctrine,  it  was  impossible  that  he  should  assent 
to  it,  and  he  was  ready  to  shed  his  blood  in  defence  of  the 
veneration  of  the  images.  He  was  then,  at  the  command  of 
the  Emperor,  dragged  away  from  his  cave  by  a  party  of 
soldiers,  and  carried  to  a  monastery  which  lay  lower  down 
under  the  mountain  (as,  being  quite  enfeebled  through  fast 
ing,  he  was  unable  to  walk) ;  and  here  he  remained  im- 

1  Ada  Sandor.  Oct.  t.  viii.  p.  128. 

-  Vita  Stephani,  I.e.  p.  507,  and  Ada  SS.  I.e.  p.  130. 


CRUELTIES  OF  THE  EMPEROR  CONSTANT1NE  COPRONYMUS.   321 

prisoned  along  with  the  other  monks  for  six  days  without  food. 
As,  however,  the  Emperor  made  an  expedition  against  the 
Bulgarians,  June  17,  763, l  the  action  against  Stephen  was  in 
terrupted,  and  he  was  taken  back  again  into  his  cell.  During 
the  absence  of  the  Emperor,  Callistus  managed,  by  money  and 
promises,  that  two  accusers  should  appear  against  Stephen. 
His  own  disciple  Sergius  declared  that  he  had  pronounced 
anathema  on  the  Emperor  as  a  heretic ;  and  a  female  slave 
testified  that  her  own  mistress,  the  distinguished  widow  Anna, 
who  was  a  spiritual  daughter  of  Stephen,  and  dwelt  as  an 
ascetic  in  the  monastery  below  on  the  mountain  of  S. 
Auxentius,  had  lived  in  sinful  intercourse  with  the  saint. 

The  news  of  this  was  conveyed  to  the  Emperor  by  ex 
press  messengers,  and  he  immediately  ordered  the  arrest  of 
Anna.  After  the  end  of  the  Bulgarian  war  by  the  successful 
battle  on  June  30,  763,  Anna  was  examined  and  even 
scourged,  although  no  accusation  against  Stephen  could  be 
forced  from  her.  Another  means  for  his  overthrow  was, 
however,  found.  The  Emperor,  from  hatred  towards  the 
monks,  as  being  his  principal  opponents,  had  forbidden  the 
reception  of  novices ;  but,  with  the  Emperor's  foreknowledge, 
says  the  Vita  Stephani  (p.  468  sq.),  a  young  man  holding 
a  situation  at  the  Court,  George  Syncletus,  talked  over  S. 
Stephen  by  false  representations,  so  that  he  received  him 
into  the  number  of  his  monks.2  Scarcely  had  this  been 
done  when  the  Emperor  openly  complained,  in  an  assembly 
of  the  people,  that  the  accused  ones,  whose  names  must  not 
be  pronounced  (so  he  ordinarily  designated  the  monks),  had 
again  decoyed  away  from  him  one  of  his  best  and  most 
beloved  young  men,  and  thereby  so  goaded  the  people  that 
they  uttered  violent  maledictions  against  the  monks.  A 
few  days  later,  George  escaped  from  the  monastery  and 
hastened  to  the  Emperor.  He  was,  at  a  second  assembly 
of  the  people,  solemnly  girded  again  with  a  sword  by  the 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  667. 

2  Abbot  Stephen  knew  that  George  was  of  the  Court,  for  all  those  holding 
situations  at  the  Court  were  required  to  be  shaved  smooth,  which  seems  to  the 
biographer  of  S.  Stephen  (I.e.  470)  very  unseemly,  or  even  sinful,  as  an  offence 
against  Leviticus  xix.  27,  and  an  attempt  to  conceal  the  age. 

V. — 21 


322  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

Emperor,  and  received  anew  into  favour,  whilst  the  people 
tore  up  the  monastic  habit  which  had  been  taken  off  him, 
and  bellowed  murder  and  death  against  the  monks.  Taking 
advantage  of  this  state  of  mind,  the  Emperor  sent  a  strong 
detachment  of  soldiers  to  the  mountain  of  S.  Auxentius.  The 
disciples  of  Stephen  were  driven  away,  the  monastery  and 
church  were  burnt  down,  the  saint  dragged  from  his  cave, 
beaten  and  tortured  in  every  way,  .  .  .  and  at  last  banished 
to  the  island  of  Proconnesus  in  the  Propontis,  because  he 
refused  utterly  to  subscribe  the  decrees  of  the  false  Synod, 
and  even  censured  it  by  remarking :  The  Synod  called  itself 
holy,  but  the  most  holy  Virgin  and  the  apostles  would  with 
hold  that  predicate  from  it. 

Here  in  Proconnesus  the  scattered  monks  assembled 
themselves  around  him ;  they  lived  together  monastically, 
and  commended  to  the  people  the  veneration  of  images. 
Stephen  was  therefore,  after  a  lapse  of  two  years,  bound 
hand  and  foot,  and  brought  back  to  Constantinople.  Here, 
in  the  great  prison  of  the  Prsetorium,  he  met  with  342 
monks  from  different  lands.1  Many  had  their  ears  or  nose 
cut  off,  others  their  eyes  put  out  or  their  hands  chopped  off; 
many  still  bore  the  scars  of  previous  scourgings,  others  had 
their  beard  smeared  with  pitch  and  set  on  fire.2  Stephen 
soon  turned  the  prison  into  a  kind  of  monastery,  since  day 
and  night  he  sang  psalms  and  hymns  with  his  fellow-prisoners, 
and  exhorted  the  people,  who  assembled  from  the  neighbour 
hood,  to  the  veneration  of  images  in  order  to  their  edification. 
He  was  consequently  brought  to  trial  and  condemned  to 
death.  About  the  same  time  the  Emperor  commanded  that 
everyone  who  had  a  relation  among  the  monks,  and  con 
cealed  him,3  or  wore  a  black  coat  (i.e.  was  himself  suspected 
of  monasticism),  should  be  banished,  which  caused  great  ex 
citement  in  the  city  (Vita  Stephani,  p.  512). 

Stephen  was  already  led  forth  by  the  executioner ;  but 

1  Under  the  Emperor  Phocas  (f  610)   the   Prsetorium   was  turned  into   a 
great  prison. 

2  Vita  Stepkani,  I.e.  p.  500. 

3  The  monks  of  Constantinople  and  its  neighbourhood  had  in   the  mass 
gone  abroad,  but  many  remained   behind  in  concealment  (p.  317),  and  en 
deavoured  to  make  the  people  adhere  to  the  images. 


CRUELTIES   OF   THE   EMPEROR   CONSTANTINE   COPRONYMUS.       323 

the  Emperor  resolved  to  make  one  more  attempt  to  gain 
him  over  to  his  view,  for  if  Stephen  came  in,  then  would 
the  victory  of  the  opponents  of  images  be  fully  assured. 
He  was  therefore  brought  back  to  prison,  and  two  servants 
of  the  Emperor  sent  to  him,  instructed  either  to  talk  him 
over,  or,  if  he  were  obstinate,  to  give  him  such  a  flogging  that 
he  should  soon  afterwards  die.  The  two  servants  were, 
however,  deeply  moved  by  the  appearance  of  S.  Stephen,  and 
were  won  by  him  for  the  orthodox  faith.  They  left  him 
covered  with  cushions,  and  told  the  Emperor  that  they  had 
beaten  him  so  that  he  could  hardly  live  another  day.  In  the 
following  night  the  Emperor  learnt  through  a  demon  how 
the  matter  had  fallen  out,  and,  at  his  bitter  complaint  that 
he  was  not  obeyed,  and  that  Stephen  was  really  Emperor,  a 
great  number  of  his  bodyguards  dashed  at  the  prison  of  the 
PrcTetorium,  dragged  the  saint  on  to  the  street,  and  killed  him 
with  innumerable  blows  and  stones  on  November  28,  767. 
So  it  is  related  in  the  biography  composed  forty  -  two 
years  afterwards  (I.e.  p.  521),  which,  along  with  a  good  deal 
of  evidently  legendary  ornament,  contains  undoubted  his 
torical  truth.1 

While  Stephen  still  sat  in  the  prison  of  the  Prsetorium, 
he  conversed  with  the  other  monks  respecting  the  men  who, 
before  him,  had  died  as  martyrs  on  behalf  of  the  veneration 
of  images.  Two  of  these,  Peter  at  Blachernte  and  John  of 
Monagria,  we  have  already  mentioned  (p.  320).  Besides,  we 
learn  here  that  the  monk  Paul  of  Crete  (not  Cyprus) 
preferred  to  be  tortured  to  death  (March  17,  767)  rather 
than  tread  under  foot  an  image  of  Christ,  as  the  prefect  had 
required  of  him.2  The  priest  and  monk  Theosterictus,  how 
ever,  of  the  monastery  of  Peleceta,  on  the  Hellespont, 
who  had  his  nose  cut  off  and  his  beard  burnt  by  the  icono 
clasts,  relates  that  the  prefect  of  Asia,  named  Lachanodracon,3 
on  the  evening  of  the  previous  Thursday  in  the  week 

1  The  principal  points  of  the  history  of  S.  Stephen  are  given  to  us  also  by 
Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  674)  and  Nicephorus  (Lc.  p.  81). 

2  Vita  Stephani,  Lc.  p.  504.     Cf.  the  new  volume  of  the  Bollandists,  t.  viii. 
Octobr.  p.  127. 

3  This    Michael    Lachanodracon    is    also   mentioned    by   Theophanes,    I.e. 
pp.  681,  688. 


324  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

of  the  Passion  of  Christ,  while  the  mysteries  were  being 
celebrated,  had,  by  command  of  the  Emperor,  penetrated 
with  soldiers  into  the  monastery,  and  had  chained  thirty-eight 
monks,  carried  them  off  to  Ephesus,  and  then  killed  them, 
ill-treated  all  the  rest,  burnt  some  of  them,  cut  off  the  noses 
of  the  rest,  as  of  Theosterictus  himself,  and  set  fire  to  the 
whole  monastery,  together  with  the  church.1 

About  a  month  before  Stephen  (October  20,  767), 
Andrew  in  Crisi  also  obtained  the  crown  of  martyrdom  ;  but 
the  monks  in  the  prison  of  the  Praetorium  seem  to  have 
heard  nothing  of  this,  since  they  did  not  refer  to  him  in 
their  conversations.  This  is  the  man  whom  Theophanes 
(p.  683  sq.)  erroneously  designated  as  Peter  (instead  of 
Andrew)  Stylites  2  (cf.  p.  319),  adding  that  the  Emperor,  on 
account  of  Andrew's  resisting  his  doctrine,  had  him  bound 
by  the  feet,  dragged  through  the  streets  of  Constantinople, 
and  cast  into  a  kind  of  skinning  house  called  Pelagia.  The 
same  is  related  by  the  two  Martyria  of  S.  Andrew,  recently 
published  by  the  Bollandists,  in  which  it  is  further  told 
that  some  pious  believers  had  afterwards  buried  his  body  in 
a  holy  place  called  Crisis.3  That  he  came  originally  from 
Crete,  and  travelled  to  Constantinople  expressly  to  make 
voluntary  representations  to  the  Emperor  on  account  of  his 
cruelty  towards  the  friends  of  the  images,  we  learn  from  the 
same  source  and  the  ancient  Synaxaria ;  and  if  Baronius  had 
followed  them  (ad  ann.  762,  1),  he  would  not  have  confounded 
this  Andrew  with  the  somewhat  earlier  Bishop  Andrew  of 
Crete,  as  Pagi  (ad  ann.  761,  2)  erroneously  did,  and 
all  followed  him.  In  his  annotations  to  the  Martyrology 
(ad  17  Octobr.),  Baronius  expressly  distinguishes  the  two,  as 
the  Bollandists  have  remarked,  and  gives  proofs  of  his  view.4 

Another  monk,  who  had  formerly  been  an  officer,  Paulus 

1  Vita  Stephani,  p.  505  sq. ;  Ada  SS.  I.e.  p.  127  sq. 

2  Many  were  named  Stylites,  not  because  they  lived  on  pillars,  but  in  cells 
which  had  the  form  of  a  pillar.     Thus  the  cell  of  S.  Stephen,  which  he  erected 
for  himself  in  Proconnesus,  is  called  a  o"ri;Aoei5£$  /ju.Kpbv  gyK\ei<TTpoi>.     Cf.    Vita 
Stephani,  I.e.  p.  486 ;  Ada  SS.  I.e.  p.  132,  and  t.  i.  Januar.  p.  262. 

3  Ada  SS.  I.e.  pp.  128&,  141,  and  148. 

4  Ada  SS.  I.e.  p.  132,  and  Martyrolog.  ed.  Baron,  et  Rosweid.     Antwerp 
1613,  p.  440,  n.  d. 


CRUELTIES   OF  THE   EMPEROR   CONSTANTINE   COPRONYMUS.       325 

Novus,  was  executed  A.D.  771  j1  and  also  many  laymen, 
even  of  the  highest  civil  and  military  offices,  suffered  banish 
ment  or  death,  partly  on  account  of  their  inclination  for 
the  images,  partly  because  they  had  become  politically 
suspected.2  The  Emperor  and  his  deputies  contended 
together  in  bloody  zeal ;  and  with  peculiar  prominence, 
Michael  Lachanodracon,  already  well  known  to  us,  who,  after 
having  ill-treated  many  monks  and  nuns,  blinding  and  killing 
them,  sold  all  the  monasteries  in  his  province  (Thrace), 
together  with  the  sacred  vessels,  books,  and  all  the  church 
furniture,  and  sent  the  proceeds  to  the  Emperor.  If  he 
found  anyone  using  relics  as  amulets,  the  relics  were  burnt, 
the  person  using  them  punished,  and  if  a  monk,  put  to  death.3 
As  the  Emperor  was  resolved  entirely  to  root  out 
monasticism,  he  turned  many  monasteries  into  taverns  and 
the  like,  caused  others  to  be  entirely  destroyed,  required  that 
the  monks  should  wear  secular  attire  and  marry,  gave 
places  and  offices  to  the  obedient,  and  caused  the  steadfast 
to  be  led  round  the  circus  in  great  numbers  with  nuns 
(some  say,  harlots)  on  their  arm,  to  the  great  sport  of  the 
populace.4  That  under  such  persecutions  and  oppressions 
some  monks  overstepped  the  bounds  of  righteous  opposition, 
we  will  not  deny ;  indeed,  it  would  rather  be  wonderful  if  it 
were  not  so.  It  is,  however,  quite  wrong,  on  the  part  of 
Walch  (I.e.  S.  40 5  f.),  to  try  to  make  out  that  the  fault  of 
the  monks  was  very  great  and  that  of  the  Emperor  as  small 
as  possible.  Of  the  latter,  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say  (S.  301) : 
"  He  must  have  been  a  chaste  prince,  for  no  one  attributes 
to  him  sensual  excesses."  Walch,  besides  many  other 
allusions  in  the  original  documents,  must  have  known  the 
decisive  passage  in  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  685),  where  the 

1  Acta  SS.   I.e.    p.    130&.     The  Greek  Kalendars  also  refer  to  a   Princess 
Anthusa  and  her  governess,  also  named  Anthusa,  who  had  both  been  mms,  and 
had  distinguished  themselves  by  their  zeal  for  the  images.     But  doubts  have 
been   raised   as  to   their  existence.     Cf.   Baron,   ad  ann.   775,   5,   6  ;  Walch, 
I.e.  S.  412. 

2  Theophan.  I.e.  pp.  676,  678  ;  Nicephor.  De  llebus  post  Mauritium  gestis, 
ed.  Bonn,  pp.  81,  83. 

3  Theophan.  I.e.  pp.  684,  688,  689. 

4  Theophan.  I.e.  p.  676  ;  Nicephor.  I.e.  p.  83  ;  Zonaras,  lib.  xv.  c,  5. 


326  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Piederastia  of  the  Emperor  is  spoken  of.  But  he  thought 
good  to  omit  this  passage  and  (at  S.  325)  to  translate  only 
the  remaining  portion  of  this  section. 

In  the  course  of  the  contest  over  the  images,  the 
Emperor  came  to  the  idea  of  requiring  of  all  his  subjects 
an  oath  on  this  matter.  He  therefore  assembled  first  the 
inhabitants  of  Constantinople,  "  had  the  life-giving  body  and 
blood  of  Christ,  and  also  the  holy  cross,  publicly  set  forth, 
and  all  swore  on  the  holy  Gospels  that  henceforth  they  would 
reverence  no  image,  and  regard  every  such  thing  as  an 
idol,  have  no  fellowship  with  a  monk,  but  rather  would 
persecute  every  such  worthless  black  -  coat  with  insult  and 
with  stones."  This  oath  was  first  taken,  as  an  example  to  all 
the  people,  by  the  Patriarch  Constantine  in  the  Ambo,  the 
holy  cross  in  his  hand ;  and  although  he  had  once  been  a 
monk,  from  that  time  he  began  a  quite  secular  kind  of  life.1 
The  time  at  which  this  oath  was  required  and  taken  is 
doubtful.  Theophanes  places  it  in  the  4th  Indiction,  i.e. 
between  September  1,  765—766  ;  on  the  one  hand,  he  him 
self,  as  well  as  Nicephorus,  places  this  occurrence  after  the 
martyrdom  of  S.  Stephen,  and  this  gave  occasion  to  Pagi 
(ad  ann.  765,  1),  holding  by  this  latter  statement,  to  ascribe 
the  taking  of  the  oath  to  the  year  767,  whilst  the  new 
Bollandists  (I.e.  pp.  127,  12  and  131,  26),  taking  no  notice  of 
this,  hold  firmly  to  the  4th  Indiction,  and  thus  to  766. 

From  the  images  the  Emperor  extended  his  persecution 
to  the  relics  of  the  saints,  which  he  caused  everywhere  to  be 
removed.  In  particular,  Theophanes  mentions  (I.e.  p.  679) 
that  the  body  of  the  highly  venerated  S.  Euphemia  was  torn 
out  of  her  splendid  church  at  Chalcedon,  in  which  the  fourth 
(Ecumenical  Council  had  been  held,  and  with  the  coffin  cast 
into  the  sea.  Moreover,  of  the  church  the  Emperor  made 
an  arsenal.  But  the  waves  bore  the  venerable  coffin  to  the 
coast  of  Lemnos,  where  pious  believers  concealed  it,  until, 
later  on,  the  Empress  had  it  brought  back  to  the  restored 
church  at  Chalcedon.  Even  prayers  to  the  saints  were  for 
bidden,  and  ejaculations,  as,  for  example,  "  Mother  of  God, 

1  Vita  Mephani,    I.e.    p.   443  ;    Theophanes,    I.e.    p.   675 ;    Nicephor.   I.e. 
p.  82. 


EASTERN  PATRIARCHS   FAVOUR  IMAGES.  327 

help  us,"  were  followed  by  severe  punishments.1  The 
Emperor  is  even  said  to  have  fallen  into  the  Nestorian 
heresy,  and  to  have  asked  the  Patriarch  Constantine  whether 
it  would  not  be  well,  instead  of  "  God-bearer,"  in  future  to 
make  use  of  the  expression  "  Christ -bearer."  But  the 
patriarch  had  adjured  him  to  keep  away  from  this,  and  had 
promised  the  Emperor  silence.2  Whether  it  was,  as  Cedrenus 
states,  that  he  broke  this  promise,  or  that  he  fell  under 
suspicion  of  other  kinds  of  disloyalty,  especially  political,  he 
was,  in  the  year  766,  deposed  and  banished,  and  subsequently 
shamefully  ill-treated  and  beheaded ;  and  Nicetas,  a  eunuch 
and  a  man  of  Slavonian  or  servile  origin,  raised  to  be  his 
successor,  who  manifested  his  zeal  immediately  by  effacing 
the  pictures  in  the  patriarchal  residence,  and  elsewhere,3  and 
crowned  Eudoxia,  the  third  wife  of  the  Emperor,  as  well  as 
his  two  younger  sons,  Christopher  and  Nicephorus.4 

SEC.  340.   Three  Patriarchs  in  the  East  are  in  favour 
of  the  Images. 

During  these  occurrences  in  the  Byzantine  kingdom,  the 
patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  declared 
themselves  with  all  decision  for  the  ecclesiastical  veneration  of 
images.  As  their  cities  were  in  the  hands  of  the  Saracens,  and 
they  were  no  longer  politically  dependent  upon  the  Byzantine 
Emperor,  they  could  express  themselves  more  freely  than  the 
Greek  bishops  (cf.  p.  316).  One  of  them,  Theodore  of 
Antioch,  had  been  exiled  in  the  year  757  by  the  Caliph  Selim, 
because  he  became  suspected  of  having  conducted  a  corre 
spondence,  dangerous  to  the  State,  with  Constantine  Coprony- 
mus ; 5  but  his  restoration  must  have  speedily  followed,  for  in 
the  year  764  we  meet  him  again  in  Antioch.  Theophanes 
(Lc.  p.  669)  relates  :  Bishop  Cosmas,  named  Comanites,  from 

1  Theophan.  Lc.  pp.  678,  684. 
2Theophan.  Lc.  p.  671. 

3  Theophan.  Lc.  pp.  678,  680,  681,  686  ;  Nicephor.  Lc.  p.  83  sq. 

4  This   took  place   in   the  hall  of  the    nineteen   accubitorum   (see  above, 
p.  277),  which  Damberger,  Synchronise   Gesch.  Bd.  ii.  S.  402,  and  Kritikheft, 
S.  162,  mistook  for  a  throne  19  ells  high. 

6  Theophan.  Lc.  p.  663. 


328  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Epiphania  in  Apamea  in  Syria,  had  been  accused  by  his 
diocesans,  before  the  Patriarch  Theodore  of  Antioch,  of  having 
taken  the  sacred  vessels  from  the  church.  In  order  that  he 
might  not  be  compelled  to  replace  them,  he  had  gone  over  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Byzantine  Emperor,  but  the  Patriarchs 
Theodore  of  Aritioch,  Theodore  of  Jerusalem,  and  Cosmas  of 
Alexandria  had,  in  agreement  with  their  suffragans,  pro 
nounced  against  him  a  sentence  of  deposition  and  anathema. 

The  Libellus  Synodicus  and  the  biography  of  the  Gothic 
Bishop  John,  published  by  the  Bollandists,  speak  of  a  Synod 
held  about  that  time  by  the  Patriarch  Theodore  of  Jerusalem, 
at  which  he  anathematised  iconoclasm.  This  Synod  is  said  to 
have  sent  to  the  above-named  Bishop  John,  who  had  formerly 
taken  part  in  the  false  Council  of  the  year  754,  but  had 
amended,  a  biblical  and  patristic  proof  in  behalf  of  the 
veneration  of  images.1  That  the  Libellus  Synodwus  places  this 
Synod  of  Jerusalem  before  the  false  Council  of  the  year  754 
is  not  of  significance,  for  it  is  clear  from  the  biography  of  the 
Gothic  Bishop  John  that  it  must  have  taken  place  a  good  deal 
later,  and  we  conclude  from  the  words  of  Theophanes  that 
every  one  of  the  three  patriarchs,  with  the  bishops  under  him, 
held  such  a  Synod  on  the  question  of  the  images  and  on 
account  of  Cosmas  of  Epiphania.  It  is  therefore  very 
probable  that  the  Synodica  of  the  Patriarch  Theodore  of 
Antioch,  which  is  found  among  the  Acts  of  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Council  (Act  iii.),  had  been  drawn  up  on  this 
occasion.2  But  this  document  bears  quite  evidently  the 
character  of  an  enthronisation  letter  (also  called  Synodica), 
and  therefore  contains  (a)  a  copious  confession  of  the  orthodox 
faith  generally,  united  with  a  very  complete  assent  to  the 
decrees  of  the  six  (Ecumenical  Synods,  whilst,  at  the  close,  only 
a  relatively  quite  small  space  is  dedicated  to  the  defence  of 
the  images.  (&)  With  the  idea  of  an  enthronisation  letter  the 
last  words  also  agree  :  "  May  the  two  colleges  of  Alexandria 
and  Antioch  receive  this  Synodica  in  a  friendly  manner,  and  if 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  271;   Hardouin,   t.  v.  p.  1542;  Ada  SS.  t.  v.  Junii, 
p.  184  sqq.     The  principal  passage  of  the  latter  is  printed  in  Mansi,  t.  xii. 
p.  680. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1136  sqq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  142  sqq. 


EASTERN  PATRIARCHS   FAVOUR  IMAGES.  329 

anything  in  it  is  to  be  corrected,  kindly  make  him  acquainted 
with  it."  (c)  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  word  in  it 
relating  to  Cosmas  of  Epiphania,  and  the  initiative  in  an 
investigation  in  regard  to  him  did  not  belong  to  the  patriarch 
of  Jerusalem,  but  to  him  of  Antioch.  I  cannot,  therefore, 
agree  with  those  who  would  bring  this  Synodica  into  con 
nection  with  the  matter  of  Cosmas,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
regard  it  as  older,  and  believe  that  we  should  recognise  it  as 
the  letter  of  enthronisation  which  the  Patriarch  Theodore  of 
Jerusalem  sent  out  on  taking  possession  of  his  see. 

Thus  the  doubts  of  Walch  (KetzerhisL  Bd.  x.  S.  379  f.) 
drop  away  of  themselves,  as  to  why  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem 
had  taken  the  chief  part  in  the  affair  against  Cosmas.  This 
hesitation  rests  merely  on  a  confusion  of  that  Inthronistica 
[epistola]  with  the  sentence  of  the  three  Oriental  patriarchs 
against  Cosmas.  On  the  other  hand,  our  Inthronistica  is  per 
haps  identical  with  that  Synodica  which  Theodore  of  Jerusalem, 
after  receiving  the  decision  of  his  two  colleagues  of  Alex 
andria  and  Antioch,  sent  to  Pope  Paul,  in  which  he  set  forth 
his  orthodoxy  in  general,  and  his  agreement  with  the  Eoman 
Church  in  regard  to  the  images.  This  Synodica  arrived  in 
Eome  in  August  767,  when  Paul  was  already  dead,  and  the 
intruding  Antipope  Constantine  sat  on  the  throne.  He  sent 
this  document  immediately  to  King  Pipin,  "  that  they  might 
see  in  Gaul  what  zeal  for  the  images  prevailed  in  the  East  "j1 
and  even  Pope  Hadrian  I.  afterwards  appealed  repeatedly  to 
this  Synodica,  and  certainly  describes  it  in  a  manner  which 
does  not  quite  harmonise 2  with  the  copy  which  has  come 
down  to  us,  and  must  therefore  raise  a  doubt  as  to  the 
identity  of  the  two  documents.  In  particular,  the  Synodica 
which  Hadrian  had  before  him  appears  to  have  contained 
patristic  proof  for  the  images,  which  is  wanting  in  the  other. 
But  it  may  be  that  the  Synodica  sent  to  Eome  is  nothing 
else  than  an  elaboration  and  expansion  of  this  Inthronistica 
of  Jerusalem  drawn  up  in  consequence  of  the  counsel  of  the 
patriarchs  of  Antioch  and  Alexandria. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  760  and  680  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  767,  5. 

2  In  his  memorial  in  defence  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod,  in  Mansi, 
t.  xiii.  p.  764  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  778. 


330  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

SEC.  341.    The  Franks  and  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  A.D.  767. 

In  the  meantime,  Constantine  Copronymus  did  not 
abandon  the  hope  of  attaining,  with  the  Franks,  by  diplo 
matic  arts,  two  important  results  which  were  for  him  of  the 
highest  importance,  namely,  their  assent  to  the  rejection  of 
the  images  and  the  restoration  of  the  former  Byzantine 
provinces  of  Italy.  Several  embassies  were  interchanged 
between  the  two  Courts  in  reference  to  this  matter,  and  one 
such  in  particular  is  referred  to  in  that  letter  of  Pope  Paul  i. 
to  Pipin  which  is  given  as  No.  26  in  the  Codex  Carolinus. 
We  learn  from  this  that  ambassadors  of  the  Byzantine 
Emperor  had  come  to  the  Frankish  Court,  and  had,  by  fine 
words  (suasionis  fdbulatid)  and  all  kinds  of  promises  (inanes 
promissiones),  obtained  from  King  Pipin  a  favourable  answer 
to  their  wishes.  The  latter  explained  to  them,  however,  his 
wish,  first  of  all,  to  take  counsel,  on  so  important  a  matter, 
with  the  bishops  and  nobles  of  his  kingdom  in  an  assembly 
(concilium  mixtum),  and  at  the  same  time  made  the  Pope 
acquainted  with  this,  with  the  assurance  of  his  unaltered 
adhesion  to  the  Eoman  Church  and  the  orthodox  faith.  Pope 
Paul  replied,  he  was  sure  that  Pipin's  answer  to  the  Greeks 
tended  only  to  the  exaltation  of  the  Eoman  Church,  which  was 
the  head  of  all  the  Churches  and  of  the  orthodox  faith,  that  he 
would  never  draw  back  what  he  had  offered  to  S.  Peter  for 
the  salvation  of  his  soul,  and  that  the  suasionis  fabulatio  of 
the  Greeks  would  be  of  no  avail  with  him,  since  the  Word  of 
God  and  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles  was  deeply  fixed  in  his 
heart.1 

The  assembly  of  the  Frankish  bishops  and  nobles  here 
referred  to  is,  in  our  judgment,  no  other  than  the  Synod  of 
Gentilly  (in  Gfentiliaco),  a  spot  in  the  immediate  neighbour 
hood  of  Paris  which  King  Pipin  held  in  the  year  767, 
when  he  celebrated  Easter  there.  The  Acts  of  this  assembly 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  613  sqq.  The  time  of  the  composition  of  the  particular 
parts  in  the  Codex  Carolinus,  and  so  also  that  of  No.  26,  is  doubtful,  as  is  well 
known  ;  but  if,  as  we  believe,  the  concilium  mixtum  then  brought  before  us  is 
identical  with  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  then  No.  26  must  belong  to  the  year  766 
or  the  beginning  of  767. 


CONTESTS   FOR  THE   HOLY   SEE.  331 

have  not  been  preserved,  and  the  many  ancient  Frankish 
chroniclers  who  refer  to  them,  e.g.  Einhard,  remark  quite 
briefly  that  they  discussed  the  questions  of  the  disputes  about 
the  images  and  of  the  Trinity,  whether  the  Holy  Spirit  pro 
ceeded  also  from  the  Son.1  Pagi  supposes  (I.e.)  that,  as  the 
Latins  reproached  the  Greeks  with  heresy  on  account  of  the 
destruction  of  the  images,  these,  in  return,  had  accused  the 
Latins  of  adding  the  filioque.  Schlosser,  on  the  contrary 
(S.  2 3 9),  holds  it  for  proved,  but  without  the  slightest  support 
from  the  original  authorities,  that  the  papal  legates  who  were 
present  at  the  Synod  brought  up  the  discussion  on  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in  order  to  excite  dislike  for  the  Greeks. 
Further  information  respecting  the  Synod  of  Gentilly  is 
found  in  the  twentieth  section  of  the  Codex  Carolinus,  if  we 
may  assume  that  this  letter  of  Pope  Paul  to  Pipin  was  written 
a  little  later.2  The  Pope  says,  in  this  letter,  that  Pipin  had 
never  given  audience  to  the  Byzantine  ambassadors  except  in 
the  presence  of  the  papal  legates,  that  no  suspicion  might 
arise  ;  moreover,  that  these  legates  had  disputed  concerning 
the  faith  with  the  Byzantine  ambassadors  in  the  presence  of 
Pipin,  and  that  the  letter  of  the  Byzantines  to  Pipin,  as  well  as 
the  answer  of  the  latter,  had  been  communicated  to  the  Pope. 
The  Pope  here  praises  the  zeal  of  Pipin  for  the  exaltation  of 
the  Church  and  the  defence  of  orthodoxy,  and  we  see  from  this 
that  the  Synod  of  Gentilly  had  also  made  a  declaration  in  regard 
to  the  veneration  of  images  which  was  agreeable  to  the  Pope. 

SEC.  342.   Contests  for  the  Holy  See. 

Soon  after  the  holding  of  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  Pope  Paul  I. 
died,  June  28,  767.  Even  during  his  illness,  Duke  Toto  of 
Nepi  (a  city  somewhat  to  the  north  of  Eome)  wanted  to  kill 

1  Collected   by  Walch,    Ketzerhist.    Bd.    xi.    S.    9  ff. ;   partially  in   Mansi, 
t.  xii.  p.  677  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  2012  ;  Pagi,  ad  ann.  766,  3.     The  mistaken 
notice  of  Baronius,  who  placed  the  Synod  in  the  year  766,  was  opposed  even  by 
Pagi  (I.e.),  but,  in  spite  of  this,  it  was  renewed  by  Mansi  (I.e.);  but  he  was  also 
opposed  by  Walch,  I.e.  S.  13  f. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  604.     Muratori  and  others  remove  this  letter  to  the  year 
764,  but  Walch  (Bd.  xi.  S.  18)  saw  correctly  that  it  was  certainly  written  after 
the  holding  of  the  Synod  of  Gentilly,  and  refers  to  this. 


HISTORY  OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

him.  But  Christopher,  the  Primicerius  of  the  notaries,  pre 
vented  it  by  his  watchfulness,  and  brought  it  about  that  the 
Duke,  in  union  with  the  other  men  of  influence,  took  an  oath 
that  the  future  Pope  should  be  elected  only  by  common  agree 
ment.  As  soon,  however,  as  the  Pope  died,  Toto  violated  his 
oath,  penetrated  into  the  city  with  armed  peasants,  took 
possession  of  the  Lateran,  and  had  his  brother  Constantine, 
who  was  still  a  layman,  receive,  in  a  few  days,  ordination 
and  the  papal  consecration  l  at  the  hands  of  the  three  intimi 
dated  cardinal  bishops  of  Palestrina,  Albano,  and  Portus. 
That  this  Antipope  Constantine  wrote  to  King  Pipin,  and 
sent  him  a  Synodica  of  the  Oriental  bishops,  we  have  already 
seen.  In  a  still  earlier  letter  to  Pipin,  he  attempted  to  gain 
him  over  and  to  excuse  the  irregularities  of  his  election,  as  he 
had,  against  his  will,  been  chosen  by  the  enthusiasm  of  the 
Eomans.2  But  after  a  year's  respite  he  was  overthrown. 
The  discontented,  who  had  gone  abroad  with  the  Primicerius 
and  papal  counsellor  Christopher  and  his  son  Sergius 
(treasurer  of  the  Eoman  Church)  at  their  head,3  slipped  into 
the  neighbourhood  of  the  city  by  night,  on  July  28,  7 6 8,  and, 
supported  by  a  company  of  Lombard  volunteers,  got  posses 
sion  of  the  Salarian  bridge,  and  on  the  following  morning 
forced  their  way  through  the  gate  of  S.  Pancratius,  which  was 
opened  to  them  by  a  relation  inside  the  city.  Duke  Toto, 
who  hastened  up  to  force  them  back,  fell,  and  his  brother  the 
Pope  was  taken  prisoner.  Whilst  they  were  preparing  for 
his  deposition,  the  Lombard  party,  who  had  been  assisting, 
under  the  guidance  of  the  Lombard  priest  Waldipert,  by  their 
own  authority  caused  a  pious  monk,  Philip,  to  be  proclaimed 
Pope ;  but  Christopher  and  his  friends  did  not  give  assent, 

1  We  learn  this  from  the  Vita  Stephani  HI.  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  680,  and 
more  fully  from  the  Acts  of  the  Lateran  Synod  of  769  edited  by  Cenni.     See 
below,  sec.  343. 

2  Mansi,  t,  xii.  pp.  757  and  712. 

3  Christopher,  as  is  clear  from  the  Lateran  Synod  of  A.D.  769,  was  Primi 
cerius  Notariorum  [Primus  in   ceram   relatus — the  first  entered  on  the  wax 
tablet  ;  see  Did.  of  Antiq.  s.v.],  the  first  among  the  seven  Court  officials  of 
the  Pope  (Palatini),  at  the  same  time  Judex palatinus,  a  cleric,  but  in  minor 
orders  or  a  sub-deacon,  which  ordo  was  then  reckoned   among   the  minores. 
See  Cenni,  Pr&fatio  in  Concil.  Lateran.  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  707  sq. 


THE  LATERAN  SYNOD,  A.D.   769.  333 

and,  hearing  of  this,  Philip  resigned  immediately,  in  order  not 
to  give  occasion  for  further  contests.  Thereupon,  on  August 
5,  768,  in  a  great  assembly  of  the  Eoman  clergy  and  laity, 
Constantine  was  declared  an  intruder  and  an  antipope,  and 
on  the  following  day  Stephen  iv.,  hitherto  priest  in  the 
Church  of  S.  Cecilia,  a  learned  and  virtuous  man,  who  besides 
had  enjoyed  in  a  high  degree  the  confidence  of  Pope  Paul, 
was  unanimously  elected.  Constantine  and  his  adherents, 
however,  were  treated  by  the  embittered  people  with  frightful 
acts  of  violence,  having  their  eyes  put  out  and  the  like.  The 
new  Pope  seems  to  have  been  powerless  in  this  confusion,1 
and  immediately  wrote  to  King  Pipin  and  asked  for  his  assist 
ance,  in  order  to  the  holding  of  a  great  Synod  at  Eome,  so  as 
to  restore  order.  When  his  ambassadors  arrived  in  Paris, 
Pipin  was  already  dead  (f  September  24,  768)  ;  but  his  two 
sons  and  heirs,  Charles  the  Great  and  Carlmann,  responded  to 
the  petition  of  the  Pope,  and  sent  twelve  Frankish  bishops  to 
the  proposed  Synod.2 

SEC.  343.   The  Lateran  Synod,  A.D.  769. 

The  new  Synod  was  held  in  April  769,  in  the  Basilica  of 
S.  Salvator  in  the  Lateran  palace,  under  the  presidency  of 
the  Pope,  and  besides  the  Frankish  bishops,  there  were  also 
present  bishops  from  Tuscany,  Campania,  and  the  other  parts 
of  Italy, — altogether  fifty -two  bishops  or  representatives  of 
bishops,  together  with  several  priests,  monks,  secular  grandees, 
officers,  citizens,  and  many  of  the  laity.  A  short  history 
of  what  they  did  is  given  in  the  Vita  Stephani  m.  (iv.) :  see 

1  Cf.    Vita  Stephani  in.    in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  683  sq.     The   eyes   of  the 
Lombard  priest  Waldipert  were  also  put  out,  and  his  tongue  cut  out,  because 
he  had  plotted  a  conspiracy  for  the  murder  of  Christopher. 

2  Vita  Stepliani  in.  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  680-685,  also  in  Baronius,  ad  ann. 
768,  1-11.     It  is  incorrect  to  maintain  with  Luden  (Gesch.  des  teutschen  Volkes, 
Bd.  iv.  S.  252),  that  only  Charles,  and  not  also  Carlmann,  sent  bishops  fromjiis 
part  of  the  Empire  to  the  Synod.     The  Vita  Stephani  (I.e.}  not  only  speaks  of 
both  Kings,  but  also  the  names  of  the  twelve  Frankish  bishops  (of  whom  later 
on)  show  clearly  that  several  belonged  to  the  kingdom   of  Carlmann.      The 
latter  had  received  the  South  :  Burgundy,  Provence,  Languedoc,  Alsace,  and 
the  Alemanni ;  and  therefore  the  bishoprics  of  Lyons  and  Narbonne  certainly 
belonged  to  his  part  of  the  Empire. 


334  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  685  sq.  Besides  this,  there  were  formerly 
only  a  few  small  fragments  of  the  minutes  of  the  Synod ;  but 
in  A.D.  1735,  Cajetan  Cenni  edited,  from  an  ancient  codex  of 
the  chapter  library  at  Verona,  a  larger  fragment  containing 
the  beginning  of  the  minutes  of  the  first  session,  so  that  we 
now  possess  at  least  one  or  another  fragment  of  four  sessions. 
At  the  same  time,  he  elucidated  the  publication  by  a  Prcefatio 
and  an  extensive  ecclesiastico-geographical  dissertation.  The 
whole  bears  the  title :  Concilium  Latcranense  Stephani  ill.  (iv.) 
cinn.  DCCLXIX.  mmc  primum  in  lucem  editum  ex  antiquissimo 
codice  Veronensi  MS.  Rom.  1735,  and  is  reprinted  at  length 
in  Mansi's  first  supplementary  volume  to  Coleti's  edition 
of  the  Councils.  In  his  own  larger  collection  of  the 
Councils,  however,  Mansi  has  omitted  the  dissertation  on 
ecclesiastical  geography,  because  he  intended  to  publish  it 
along  with  several  other  dissertations  in  a  separate  supple 
mentary  volume  which  never  appeared.1 

The  fragment  edited  by  Cenni  shows  that  the  first 
session  took  place  on  April  12,  769,  that  at  that  time,  how 
ever,  they  no  longer  dated  at  Eome  by  the  years  of  the 
Byzantine  Emperors,  and  thus  apparently  no  longer  recognised 
their  sovereignty.  It  was  through  this  fragment  that  we 
first  received  a  list  of  all  the  bishops  and  clergy  present. 
The  names  of  the  twelve  Frankish  bishops  had  previously 
been  discovered  by  J.  Sirmond  in  Sckedis  Onuphrii,  but  neither 
completely  nor  correctly.  We  now  learn  that,  first  after  the 
Pope,  the  representative  of  the  archbishop  of  Eavenna  (as  the 
first  metropolitan  in  the  West)  had  his  seat,  and  after  him 
Wilichar,  archbishop  of  Sens.  He  was  followed  by  the 
Cardinal-bishop  George  of  Ostia ;  but  immediately  after  him, 
and  before  all  the  other  Italians,  came  the  eleven  remaining 
Frankish  bishops :  Wulfram  of  Meaux,  Lullus  of  Mainz, 
Gabienus  of  Tours,  Ado  of  Lyons,  Herminard  of  Bourges, 
Daniel  of  Narbonne,  Hermenbert  of  Joahione  (according  to 
Cenni  =  Juvavia,  Salzburg),2  Verabulp  of  Burtevulgi  (  =  Bur- 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  703-721. 

2  Hermenbert  can  certainly  not  have  been  the  actual  bishop  of  Salzburg,  for 
the  Salzburg  catalogues  do  not  contain  this  name  ;  but  as  Bavaria  was  almost 
without  bishops  in  those  times,  the  church  of  Salzburg  was  governed  for  many 


THE  LATERAN   SYNOD,  A.D.   769.  335, 

degala,  Bordeaux),  Erlulf  of  Langres  (the  founder  of  the 
monastery  of  Ellwangen),  Tilpin  of  Eeims,  Giselbert  of  Noyon. 
Bishop  Joseph,  whom  Sirmond  reckons  among  the  Frankish 
bishops  (whilst  he  omits  the  bishop  of  Meaux),  was,  according 
to  Cenni,  of  Dertona  in  Italy. 

It  must  naturally  strike  us  that  of  these  Frankish  bishops, 
only  Wilichar  of  Sens  is  designated  archbishop,  whilst  the 
bishops  of  Mainz,  Tours,  Lyons,  Bourges,  Narbonne,  Bordeaux, 
and  Eeims  (genuine  metropolitan  sees)  were  present.  But 
Cenni  shows  that  in  the  eighth  century  the  metropolitan 
constitution  had  almost  entirely  become  extinct,  and  was  not 
again  restored  until  the  time  of  Pope  Hadrian  i.  and  Charles 
the  Great.  Thus,  e.g.,  Lullus  had  occupied  the  see  of  Mainz 
for  a  long  time  before  he  received  from  Pope  Hadrian  the 
pallium,  and  therewith  the  archiepiscopal  dignity.  Thus,  in 
the  opinion  of  Cenni,  at  that  time  only  Wilichar  of  Sens, 
among  the  Franks  present,  possessed  the  pallium  and  the  title 
of  archbishop. 

The  Italian  bishops  were :  Joseph  of  Dertona,  Lanfried  of 
Castrum  (subsequently  united  with  Aquapendente),  Aurinand 
of  Tuscana  (subsequently  united  with  Yiterbo),  NN.  of 
Balneum-regis  (Bagnarea),  Peter  of  Populonium  (subsequently 
united  with  Massa),  Felerad  of  Luna  (removed  to  Sarzana), 
Theodore  of  Pavia,  Peter  of  Caere  (Cervetri,  no  longer  a 
diocese),  Maurinus  of  Polimartium  (subsequently  united  with 
Bagnarea),  Leo  of  Castellum  (Citta  di  Castello),  Sergius  of 
Ferentino,  Jordanes  of  Segni,  Ado  of  Orti,  Ansualdus  of  Narni, 
Nigrotius  of  Anagni,  Agatho  of  Sutri,  NK  of  Centumcelhe 
(now  united  with  Viterbo),  Theodosius  of  Tibur,  Pinius  of 
Tres  Tabernse  (united  with  Viterbo),  Boniface  of  Piperno 
(decayed),  NN.  of  Alatri,  Valeran  of  Trevi  (decayed),  Bonus 
of  Manturanum  (decayed),  Gregory  of  Silva  Candida  or  S. 
Eufina  (united  by  Calixtus  n.  with  Portus),  Eustratius  of 
Albano,  Pothus  of  Eepi,  Cidonatus  of  Portus,  Antoninus  of 

years  only  by  the  abbots  of  S.  Peter,  without  their  being  bishops.  In  this 
time  without  bishops,  travelling  bishops,  or  those  who  had  been  driven  from 
their  sees,  were  frequently  requested  to  discharge  episcopal  functions  in  Salzburg, 
and  Cenni  believes  (I.e.  pp.  67,  71)  that  Hermenbert  was  one  of  these  strangers 
who  was  temporarily  living  in  Salzburg.  But  this  supposition  is  very  uncertain. 


336  HISTORY  OF   THE  COUNCILS. 

Csesena,  John  of  Faenza,  Stabilinus  of  Pesaro,  Maurus 
of  Fano,  Juvian  of  Gallese  (subsequently  united  with  Cas- 
tellum),  George  of  Sinigaglia,  Sergius  of  Ficoclse  (Cervia), 
Tiberius  of  Kimini,  Florence  of  Eugubium  (Gubbio),  Temaur- 
inus  of  Urbino,  Cidonatus  of  Velletri  (subsequently  united  with 
Ostia).1 

Pope  Stephen  opened  the  Synod  with  the  declaration 
that  its  aim  was  to  take  counsel  respecting  the  usurpation 
of  the  papal  see  by  Constantine,  and  to  determine  the  canon 
ical  punishment  for  this  according  to  his  deserts.  Thereupon 
Christopher,  the  Primicerius  of  the  notaries,  informed  them 
of  what  had  happened  at  the  appointment  of  that  antipope, 
how  he  had  himself  gone  in  danger  of  his  life,  but  had  fled 
with  his  sons  into  the  Church  of  S.  Peter,  and  finally  had 
obtained  permission  to  go  into  a  monastery. 

So  far  goes  the  fragment  of  Cenni.  From  Anastasius, 
however,  we  learn  further  that  at  the  same  first  session  the 
deposed  and  blinded  Antipope  Constantine  was  brought  forward, 
and  asked  how  he  had  dared,  as  a  layman,  to  aspire  to  the 
papal  chair,  a  thing  hitherto  unheard  of  in  the  Church.  He 
replied  that  he  had  been  constrained  by  the  people,  and 
brought  against  his  will  into  the  Lateran,  because  they  had 
hoped  from  him  the  abolition  of  the  evils  which  had  been 
complained  of  under  Pope  Paul.  Thereupon  he  cast  himself 
on  the  ground,  with  outstretched  hands,  and  acknowledged 
himself  as  guilty.  He  said  his  sins  were  more  in  number 
than  the  sand  of  the  sea,  but  he  trusted  that  the  Synod  would 
have  compassion  upon  him.  They  raised  him  up  from  the 
ground,  and  on  this  day  came  to  no  resolution  concerning 
him.  In  the  second  session  he  was  brought  forward  again, 
and  once  more  asked  how  he  had  ventured  to  do  anything 
so  new  and  unheard  of.  He  replied :  "  I  did  nothing  new, 
for  Archbishop  Sergius  of  Eavenna  (who  was  represented  by 
a  deacon  at  this  Synod)  and  Bishop  Stephen  of  Naples  were 
also  elected  when  laymen."  The  further  course  of  his  speech 
embittered  those  present  so  far  that  they  caused  him  to  be 

1  As  the  work  of  Cenni  here  quoted  is  so  rare,  and  as  in  the  great  collection 
of  Mansi  the  geographical  treatise  of  Cenni  is  lacking,  I  have  thought  it  well  to 
communicate  the  results  in  this  place. 


THE   LATERAN   SYNOD,   A.D.   769.  337 

beaten  and  taken  out  of  the  church.1  Then  the  Acts  of  a 
Conciliabulum  which  the  antipope  had  held  were  burnt  in  the 
presbytery  of  the  Church  of  the  Lateran.2  Pope  Stephen, 
moreover,  and  all  the  Eoman  clergy  and  laity  present,  cast 
themselves  on  the  ground,  intoning  the  Kyrie  Eleison,  and 
confessed  themselves  sinners,  because  they  had  received  the 
communion  at  the  hands  of  the  antipope.  They  all  had  pen 
ance  imposed  upon  them  (by  whom  ?) ;  and  finally,  after 
careful  consideration  of  the  ancient  canons,  the  elevation 
of  a  layman  to  the  papal  see  was  forbidden,  under  pain  of 
anathema.3 

In  the  third  session  it  was  positively  ordained  that  in 
future  only  a  cardinal  -  deacon  or  cardinal  -  priest  was  to  be 
elected  Pope,4  and  all  participation  in  the  election  was  for 
bidden  to  laymen.  A  certis  sacerdotibus  atqiie  proceribus  ecclesice 
et  cuncto  clero  ipsa  pontiftcalis  electio  proveniat.  Before,  how 
ever,  the  elect  should  be  conducted  into  the  patriarchal  abode 
(Patriarcheiori),  all  the  officers  and  the  whole  army,  as  well  as 
the  citizens  of  distinction  and  the  assembled  people,  should 
greet  him  as  Lord  of  all.  In  the  same  manner,  the  elections 
of  bishops  for  other  churches  should  take  place.  From  the 
armies  stationed  in  Tuscany  and  Campania,  no  one  was  to 
come  to  Eome  at  the  time  of  an  election,  and  neither  the 
servants  of  the  clergy  nor  military  persons,  who  were  present 
at  the  election,  were  to  bring  weapons  or  sticks  with  them.5 
In  the  same  third  session  it  was  also  decided  what  was  to  be 
done  with  those  ordained  by  the  antipope.  If  a  priest  or 
deacon  has  been  consecrated  bishop  by  him,  he  is  to  become 
priest  or  deacon  again ;  but  he  may  be  elected  bishop  anew 
by  the  laity  and  clergy,  and  be  consecrated  by  Pope  Stephen. 

1  Damberger,  Synchron.  Gesch.  Bd.  ii.  S.  415,  says,  indeed:  "Only  one 
deacon  forgot  himself  so  far  as  to  strike  the  blind  speaker  on  the  mouth."  He 
gives  no  authority  for  this  ;  and  Anastasius  says  :  "  Universi  sacerdotes  (bishops) 
alapis  ejus  cervicem  csedere  facientes  eum  extra  eamdem  ecclesiam  ejecerunt." 

-  Marianus  Scotus,  through  a  misunderstanding,  states  that  the  members  of 
the  Conciliabulum  were  burnt. 

3  The  words  of  the  Synod  relating  to  this  were  taken  into  the  Corpus  juris 
canonici,  c.  4,  Dist.  Ixxix. 

4  In  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  3,  Dist.  Ixxix. 

5  Partly  taken  into  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  5,  Dist.  Ixxix. 

V. —  22 


338  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

The  like  holds  of  those  whom  Constantine  ordained  as  priests 
and  deacons.  They  are  to  be  put  back  to  the  degree  which 
they  had  before,  but  Pope  Stephen  may  ordain  them  again 
as  priests  or  deacons.  But  they  are  not  to  be  further  ad 
vanced.  If,  however,  a  layman  has  been  ordained  priest  or 
deacon  by  the  antipope,  he  must  do  penance  throughout  his 
whole  life.  Finally,  all  sacraments  which  have  been  admini 
stered  by  the  antipope  must  be  repeated,  except  baptism  and 
confirmation  (chrisma). 

The  fourth  session  was  occupied  with  the  question  of  the 
veneration  of  images.  Patristic  testimonies  for  this  were 
presented,  the  Council  of  Constantinople  of  the  year  754  was 
anathematised,  and  that  veneration  recognised  for  the  images 
which  had  been  shown  to  them  until  this  time  by  all  Popes 
and  reverend  Fathers.  In  this  session,  too,  that  Synodica  of 
the  Patriarch  Theodore  of  Jerusalem,  with  which  we  made 
acquaintance  above  (see  p.  329),  was  read  and  approved.  At 
the  same  time,  Pope  Stephen  appealed  to  the  picture  of 
Agbarus  (see  above,  p.  291),  since  by  that  Christ  Himself 
had  confirmed  the  veneration  of  images. 

After  the  session  was  ended,  all  present  betook  themselves 
barefooted  from  the  Lateran  to  the  Church  of  S.  Peter.  The 
decrees  adopted  were  solemnly  read,  and  every  departure 
from  them  threatened  with  anathema.1 


SEC.  344.   The  Emperor  Leo  iv. 

The  Emperor  Constantine  Copronymus,  who,  by  unheard- 
of  cruelties  towards  those  who  venerated  the  images,  had 
stained  his  government,  which  in  political  and  military 
respects  was  not  without  glory,2  died  on  September  14,  775, 
in  a  ship  near  Selymbria  (in  Thrace,  lying  on  the  Propontis), 
in  consequence  of  a  very  violent  and  painful  inflammation  of 
the  feet,  and  is  said  to  have  understood  his  error  before  his 
death,  and  to  have  ordered  hymns  of  praise  to  be  sung  to  the 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  713  sqq.,  and  p.  685  sqq. 

2  He  was  an  able  soldier,  and  in  particular  the  capital  city,  Constantinople, 
flourished  under  him.     The  great  aqueduct  which  he  caused  to  be  built  was 
an  object  of  admiration  long  after  it  lay  in  ruins. 


THE  EMPEROR  LEO  IV.  339 

holy  Virgin  and  Mother  of  God.1  He  was  succeeded  by  his 
eldest  son,  Leo  iv.,  surnamed  the  Khazar,  because  his  mother, 
Irene,  the  first  wife  of  his  departed  father,  was  a  Khazar 
princess.  But  Leo's  own  wife  also  bore  the  name  of  Irene. 
She  was  born  an  Athenian,  distinguished  for  beauty  and  intelli 
gence,  but  also  for  cunning  and  ambition.  At  her  marriage 
she  had  been  compelled  to  swear  to  her  father-in-law,  Co- 
pronymus,  henceforth  to  abandon  the  veneration  of  images, 
which  she  had  hitherto  practised  in  Athens,  and  was  after 
wards  crowned  Empress  on  December  17,  and  on  January  14, 
771,  bore  her  only  son,  Constantine.  Four  years  afterwards, 
her  husband  Leo,  by  the  death  of  his  father,  became  actual 
governor,  and  soon  gained  great  popularity  by  the  liberality 
with  which  he  distributed  the  large  savings  of  his  father  arid 
lightened  the  burdens  of  the  people. 

They  therefore  asked  permission  to  proclaim  his  five-year- 
old  son  as  co-emperor  (and  successor) ;  but  the  Emperor  Leo 
was  afraid  that,  in  case  of  his  too  early  death,  this  title 
might  lead  to  the  murder  of  his  only  son,  whilst,  without 
this  title,  he  might  be  permitted  to  live  in  a  private  con 
dition,  and  only  gave  his  assent  to  the  wish  of  the 
people  after  they  had  sworn  that  they  would  preserve  the 
crown  to  his  family.  Thereupon  the  young  Constantine  vi. 
was  crowned  at  the  Easter  festival  in  776  by  the  Patriarch 
Nicetas. 2 

The  Emperor  Leo  IV.  saw  without  doubt  that  his  father 
had  gone  too  far  in  the  matter  of  the  images,  and  therefore 
at  first  leaned  decidedly  to  tolerance.  The  monks  were 
allowed  to  return,  many  of  them  were  even  raised  to  epis 
copal  sees,  and  the  hard  old  laws  against  the  veneration  of 
images  seemed,  if  not  formally  abolished,  yet  to  be  forgotten. 
We  do  not  know  whether  this  or  something  else  was  the 
reason  why  a  discontented  party,  so  early  as  May  776,  par 
ticularly  among  the  officers,  attempted  to  overthrow  the  Em 
peror  and  to  set  his  younger  brother,  Nicephorus,  on  the 
throne.  The  matter  was,  however,  discovered,  and  the  people 
loudly  demanded  the  heads  of  the  criminals.  But  the 
Emperor  Leo  only  had  the  guilty  shorn  and  banished. 

1  Theophan.  I.e.  p.  693  sq.  2  Theophan.  I.e.  p.  695  sq. 


340  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

He    does    not    seem    even    to    have    punished    his    brother 
Nicephorus. 

When  the  Patriarch  Nicetas  died,  February  6,  780,  the 
Lector  Paul  was  designated  as  his  successor  by  the  Emperor. 
He  hesitated  at  first  to  accept  the  position,  because  the 
Emperor  required  of  him  a  promise  on  oath  that  he  would 
not  restore  the  veneration  of  images.  But  at  last  he  took 
the  oath,  and  was  invested  on  the  second  Sunday  in  Lent 
780.1 

By  the  middle  of  the  Lenten  season,  six  of  the  most 
distinguished  Court  officials,  the  Protospathar  2  James,  Papias, 
Strategius,  and  the  chamberlains  Theophanes,  Leo,  and 
Thomas,  were  denounced  and  imprisoned  as  actual  venerators 
of  images.3  At  the  same  time  they  found  two  sacred  images 
in  the  bed  of  the  young  Empress,  Irene.  According  to 
Cedrenus,  the  courtiers  just  mentioned  had  hidden  them  in  the 
notion  that  no  search  would  be  made  there  ;  but  undoubtedly 
this  was  betrayed,  and  was  made  use  of  by  the  iconoclasts  in 
order  to  the  overthrow  of  the  Empress.  Although  Irene  pro 
tested  that  she  had  not  known  the  least  of  the  hidden 
images,  yet  Leo  made  the  bitterest  reproaches  against  her, 
that  she  had  broken  the  oath  which  she  made  to  his  father, 
and  sent  her  into  exile.  Those  Court  officials,  however,  were 
publicly  shorn  and  flogged,  then  led  in  disgrace  through  the 
city,  and  cast  into  the  prison  of  the  Prsetorium,  where  one  of 
them  died.  All  the  others  became  monks,  when,  after  Leo's 
death,  they  again  obtained  liberty.4  And  this  happened 
soon,  for  the  Emperor  Leo  iv.  died  on  September  8  of  the 
same  year,  780.  Theophanes,  and  those  who  follow  him, 
relate  that  the  Emperor,  from  his  great  fondness  for  precious 
stones,  had  taken  a  crown  belonging  to  the  principal  church 
which  the  Emperor  Maurice  had  founded,  and  set  it  on  his 
own  head  and  retained  it  for  himself.  He  says  that  this 
crown  was  set  with  beautiful  carbuncles,  and  that  now,  as  a 
punishment,  he  had  got  similar  red  ulcers  on  his  head,  and 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  pp.  701,  708.  2  [Chief  of  the  guards.] 

3  Schlosser  (I.e.  S.  257)  quite  erroneously  makes  these  Court  officials  to  be 
Court  chaplains. 

4  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  701. 


THE   EMPEROR   LEO   IV.  341 

had  died  of  them.1  Some  recent  historians  have,  without 
any  original  authority,  wanted  to  accuse  the  "  friend  of  the 
images,"  Irene,  of  poisoning  her  own  husband,  but  even 
Walch  (S.  501)  and  Schlosser  (S.  259)  declare  themselves 
against  the  accusation. 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  702. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  SEVENTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD  AT  NIOEA,  A.D.  787. 

SEC.   345.   The  Empress  Irene  makes  preparations  for  the 
Convocation  of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

IRENE  was  recognised  as  guardian  of  her  son,  the  new 
Emperor,  Constantine  VI.  Porphyrogenitus,  who  was 
only  ten  years  old,  and  at  the  same  time  regent  of  the 
Empire.  After  only  fourteen  days,  however,  a  party  of 
senators  and  high  officials  resolved  to  proclaim  Prince 
Nicephorus  (brother  of  Leo  iv.;  see  p.  339)  as  Emperor.  Irene 
discovered  the  conspiracy  in  good  time,  took  the  ringleaders, 
and,  after  having  them  shorn  and  scourged,  banished  them  to 
several  islands.  Nicephorus,  however,  and  his  brothers  were 
required  to  take  holy  orders,  and  on  the  following  Christmas 
(780)  to  publicly  administer  the  sacraments,  that  all  the 
people  might  learn  what  had  taken  place.  On  the  same 
festival,  Irene  restored  to  the  great  church  the  precious 
crown  which  her  husband  had  taken  away.1  So  also  the 
body  of  S.  Euphemia  was  solemnly  brought  back  to  Chalce- 
don  from  its  place  of  concealment  at  Lemnos  (see  p.  326) ;  and 
from  this  time,  says  Theophanes  (p.  704),  the  pious  were 
allowed  without  hindrance  to  worship  God  and  to  renounce 
heresy,  and  also  the  monasteries  revived,  that  is  to  say,  each 
one  was  allowed,  if  his  inclination  and  conscience  urged  him 
thereto,  again  to  venerate  the  images,  and  in  particular  this 
was  the  case  with  restored  monks,  among  whom  Abbot  Plato, 
uncle  of  Theodore  Studites,  was  peculiarly  distinguished. 
Abbot  Plato  distinguished  himself  also  later  on,  at  the 
preparatory  Synod  of  the  year  786,  by  defending  the 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  703. 

342 


PREPARATIONS   FOR   CONVOCATION   OF   (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.      343 

images,  as  his  ancient  biographer  relates.  But  Baronius 
(ad  ann.  780,  7),  using  the  inaccurate  translation  of  this 
Vita  Platonis  by  Sirlet,  has  imagined  a  Conciliabulum  of  the 
enemies  of  images  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  780,  an  error 
corrected  already  by  Pagi  (ad  ann.  780,  3,  4). 

There  is  no  doubt  that  Irene  already  thought  of  the  com 
plete  restoration  of  the  veneration  of  images,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  the  resumption  of  Church  communion  with  the  rest 
of  Christendom.  That  Pope  Hadrian  i.  exhorted  her  con 
tinually  to  this,  he  says  himself  (see  below,  p.  351) ;  but  that 
Irene  expected  from  this  favourable  results  in  regard  to  the 
possible  winning  back  of  Italy,  is  the  supposition  of  later 
scholars.  But  the  carrying  out  of  this  plan  had  to  be  put  off 
so  much  the  more  on  account  of  the  wars  with  the  Arabs  and 
Slavonians,  since  with  the  military,  among  the  officers  who  had 
been  brought  up  under  Copronymus,  iconoclasm  still  counted 
its  most  numerous  adherents.  But  after  a  peace,  which  was 
certainly  inglorious,  had  been  concluded  with  the  Arabs,  whilst, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  Slavonians  were  gloriously  overcome 
and  made  tributary,  then  it  was  possible  to  consider  the 
ecclesiastical  question  more  steadily.  At  the  same  time, 
Irene  had  brought  about  a  betrothal  between  her  son,  the 
young  Emperor,  and  Notrude,  the  daughter  of  Charles  the 
Great,  who  was  from  seven  to  eight  years  of  age,  and  there 
fore  had  to  regard  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  union  with 
the  West  as  requisite,  or  at  least  as  desirable.  The  two  men 
who  specially  assisted  the  Empress  in  this  were  Paul,  until 
now  patriarch,  and  his  successor  Tarasius ;  the  former  by  the 
way  and  manner  of  his  resignation,  the  other  by  the  condition 
which  he  laid  down  on  his  assumption  of  the  see.  It  is  very 
probable  that  the  Empress  had  come  to  an  agreement  with 
Tarasius  as  to  the  course  to  be  taken ;  whilst  it  is  less 
probable  that  any  previous  settlement  had  been  made  with 
the  Patriarch  Paul.  When  the  latter  fell  ill  in  August  784, 
he  experienced  such  violent  pains  of  conscience  on  account  of 
his  behaviour  in  the  matter  of  the  images,  particularly  on 
account  of  the  oath  at  his  entrance  upon  office,  that  he 
actually  laid  down  his  office,  left  the  patriarchal  palace, 
betook  himself  to  the  monastery  of  S.  Florus,  and  put  on  the 


344  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

monastic  habit,  August  31,  784.1  Theophanes  says  (p.  708) 
that  he  did  this  without  any  previous  knowledge  on  the  part 
of  the  Empress,  and  that  as  soon  as  she  obtained  intelligence 
of  it  she  went  immediately  with  her  son  into  the  monastery 
of  S.  Florus,  in  order  to  interrogate  the  patriarch,  with  com 
plaints  and  reproaches,  as  to  the  reason  of  his  withdrawal. 
He  answered  with  tears :  "  Oh,  that  I  had  never  occupied  the 
see  of  Constantinople,  since  this  church  is  tyrannised  over, 
and  is  separated  from  the  rest  of  Christendom."  Thereupon 
Irene,  returning,  sent  several  senators  and  patricians  to  Paul, 
that  they  might  hear  the  same  from  him,  and  through  his  con 
fessions  might  become  inclined  to  the  restoration  of  the 
images.  He  declared  to  them :  "  Unless  they  call  an 
CEcumenical  Synod  and  root  out  the  prevailing  error,  you 
cannot  be  saved."  To  their  reproach,  "  But  why  then  did 
you  promise,  in  writing,  at  your  consecration  never  to  consent 
to  the  veneration  of  images  ? "  he  replied,  "  That  is  the  very 
cause  of  my  tears,  and  this  has  driven  me  to  do  penance  and 
to  pray  God  for  His  forgiveness."  Amid  such  conversations 
Paul  died,  deeply  lamented  by  the  Empress  and  the  people, 
for  he  had  been  pious  and  very  beneficent.  From  that  time 
many  spoke  openly  in  defence  of  the  images.2 

Soon  afterwards  the  Empress  held  a  great  assemblage  of 
the  people  in  the  palace  Magnaura,  and  said :  "  You  know 
what  the  Patriarch  Paul  has  done.  Although  he  took  the 
monastic  habit,  we  should  nevertheless  have  refused  to  accept 
his  resignation  if  he  had  not  died.  Now  it  is  necessary  to 
give  him  a  worthy  successor."  All  exclaimed  that  there  was 
none  more  worthy  than  the  imperial  secretary,  Tarasius,  who 
was  still  a  layman.  The  Empress  replied :  "  We  have  also 
selected  him  as  patriarch,  but  he  does  not  consent.  He  is 
now  himself  to  enter  and  speak  to  the  people."  Tarasius 
then  addressed  the  meeting  in  a  detailed  speech,  speaking  of 
the  care  of  the  Emperors  (namely,  Irene  and  her  son)  for 

1  Walcli,  Bd.  x.  S.  468,  transposes  this  into  the  year  783,  whilst,  at  S.  530, 
he  himself  gives  the  year  correctly  as  784.     Theophanes  says  (pp.  707  and  713) 
quite  clearly  that  the  resignation  of  Paul  took  place  August  31  of  Indict,  vii., 
and    the    elevation    of  Tarasius    on    December   25    of  Indict,  viii.     The  7th 
Indiction  ran  from  September  1,  783,  to  September  1,  784. 

2  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  708  sq. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR   CONVOCATION   OF   (ECUMENICAL   SYNOD.       345 

religion,  declared  his  own  unworthiness  and  the  like.      But 
particularly,  he  proceeded,  would  he  guard  against  this,  that 
the  Byzantine  kingdom  should  be  separated  in  religion  from 
the  West  and  also  from  the  East,  and  should  from  all  sides 
receive  anathema.      He  therefore  prayed  the  Emperors — and 
all    the  people  should  support    his  prayer — to  summon  an 
(Ecumenical  Synod  for  the  restoration  of  ecclesiastical  unity. 
This  speech  is  found  in  all  completeness  both  in  Theophanes 
(I.e.  pp.  710—713)  and  in  the  preliminary  Acts  of  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical   Council,1  only  with   this   difference,  that  Theo 
phanes  maintains :  All  present  shouted  approval  to  Tarasius, 
and  with  him  demanded  the  summoning  of  an  (Ecumenical 
Synod ;  whilst  it  is  added  in  the  synodal  Acts :  "  Some  who 
lacked  intelligence  opposed."     This  statement,  confirmed  by 
the   fact   that,  at  the  beginning,  the   military  dispersed    the 
Council  which  was  subsequently  called,  is  also  in  agreement 
with   the   biographer  of  Tarasius  (Ignatius),  who  adds  that, 
however,    the    right    prevailed.2     Tarasius    was    consecrated 
patriarch  at   Christmas,  784.     Almost  everywhere  we  read 
the  statement,  referred   to   Theophanes,  that  he  immediately 
sent  a  Synodica  and  declaration  of  faith  to  Eome  and  to  the 
other  patriarchs;  but  even  Pagi  remarked  (ad  ami.  784,  2) 
that  the  word  confestim  occurred  indeed  in  the  Latin  transla 
tion  of  the  chronography  of  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  713),  but  was 
not  justified  by  the  original  Greek  text.     It  is,  however,  most 
probable    that    Tarasius,  soon    after    ascending    the    throne, 
renewed  intercourse  with  the  other  patriarchs.     His  letter, 
addressed  "  to  the  archpresbyters  and  presbyters  of  Antioch, 

1  Mansi,   t.  xii.  p.   985  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  23  sqq.     In  regard  to  the 
close  of  this  document,  there  is  found  in  Mansi  (I.e.  p.  989)  the  remark:  The 
rest  are  the  words  of  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius,  who,  as  is  known,  translated 
the  Acts  of  the  seventh  Council.     But  in  truth  the  greater  part  of  this  addition 
is   taken   from   Theophanes.     Moreover,  Mansi  gives  this  remark  as  a  note  of 
Hardouin's  ;  but  in  his  own  collection  of  Councils  it  does  not  occur. 

2  In  Baron,  ad  aim.  784,  12.     In  all  the  editions  of  Baronius  to  which  the 
writer  had  access,  there  is,  at  the  beginning  of  this   No.  12,  a  typographical 
error  which  misrepresents  the  meaning.     Baronius  here  quotes  a  passage  from 
the  biography  of  Tarasius  by  Ignatius,  and  we  should  read  :   ' '  Cum  vero  idem, 
inquit  Ignatius,  per  novse  dignitatis  gradum, "  etc.     In  Baronius,  however,  the 
comma  stands  before  Ignatius,  and  this  word  itself  is  printed  in  italics,  as  if  the 
reference  were  to  Ignatius. 


346  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Alexandria,  and  the  holy  city  "  (Jerusalem),  an  Inthronistica 
(without  date),  is  preserved  among  the  Acts  of  the  third 
session  of  Nicsea,  and  relates  at  the  beginning,  how  he, 
although  still  a  layman,  had  been  constrained  to  accept  the 
sacred  office  by  the  bishops  and  clergy.  The  other  bishops 
were  therefore  requested  to  support  him  as  fathers  and 
brethren,  for  a  spiritual  conflict  lay  before  him.  But,  in 
possession  of  unconquerable  truth,  and  supported  by  his 
brethren,  he  would  overcome  the  babblers.  As,  however,  it 
was  an  ancient,  even  an  essentially  apostolic  tradition,  that  a 
newly  appointed  bishop  should  set  forth  his  confession  of 
faith,  he  would  also  now  confess  what  he  had  learnt  from  his 
youth.  After  a  not  very  full  confession  of  faith,  in  which 
anathema  is  pronounced  upon  Pope  Honorius,  he  passes  over 
to  the  question  of  the  images  with  the  words :  "  This  sixth 
Synod  I  accept  with  all  the  dogmas  pronounced  by  it,  and  all 
the  canons  promulgated  by  it,  among  them  that  which  runs : 
In  some  representations  of  the  sacred  images  there  is  found  the 
figure  of  the  Laml ;  but  we  decide  that  Christ  shall  be  represented 
in  human  form."  He  cites  here  canon  82  of  the  Quinisext 
(see  p.  234),  and  ascribes  its  canons  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  which,  as  is  well  known,  promulgated  no  canons.  He 
then  proceeds  :  "  What  was  afterwards  superfluously  chattered 
and  babbled  (i.e.  the  decrees  of  the  false  Synod  of  the  year 
754),  I  reject,  as  you  also  have  done  ;  and  as  the  pious  and 
faithful  Emperors  have  granted  the  request  for  the  holding  of 
an  (Ecumenical  Synod,  you  will  not  refuse  your  co-operation 
in  order  to  restore  again  the  unity  of  the  Church.  Each  of 
you  (patriarchs)  will  therefore  please  to  send  two  represent 
atives,  with  a  letter,  and  communicate  his  view  on  this  matter 
as  it  has  been  given  him  by  God.  I  have  also  petitioned  the 
bishop  of  Old  Eome  for  the  same,"  etc.1 

The  letter  addressed  to  the  Pope,  to  which  Tarasius  here 
refers,  and  of  which  Theophanes  also  speaks  (I.e.  p.  713),  we 
no  longer  possess,  but  we  know  it  from  the  answer  of 
Hadrian  I.  and  from  the  remark  of  the  papal  legates  at  the 
seventh  Council,  "  that  the  Pope  had  also  received  such  a 
letter,  -roiavra  ypdp/jLara"  (thus  in  its  principal  contents 
1  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  1119-1127  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  130  sqq. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR  CONVOCATION  OF  OECUMENICAL  SYNOD.      347 

corresponding  with  the  letter  of  Tarasius  to  the  Oriental 
patriarchs).1  The  conveyance  of  this  letter  to  Eome  was 
committed  by  Tarasius  to  his  priest  and  representative 
(apocrisiar)  Leo ; 2  but  the  Court  also  sent  a  Divalis  Sacra  to 
the  Pope.  In  the  superscription,  Irene  placed,  as  in  all 
the  documents  of  this  period  (she  altered  it  afterwards),  the 
name  of  her  son  before  her  own.  In  this  letter  she  starts 
with  the  statement  that  the  secular  and  spiritual  powers  both 
proceeded  from  God,  and  therefore  were  bound  in  common  to 
rule  the  peoples  entrusted  to  them  in  accordance  with  the 
divine  will ;  and  then  proceeds  :  "  Your  Holiness  knows  what 
has  been  undertaken  here  in  Constantinople  by  previous 
governors  against  the  venerable  images.  May  it  not  be 
reckoned  to  them  by  God !  They  have  led  astray  all  the 
people  here  in  Constantinople,  and  also  the  East  (as  far  as  it 
was  under  Byzantium),  until  God  called  us  to  the  government, 
—us  who  seek  in  truth  the  honour  of  God,  and  desire  to  hold 
that  fast  which  has  been  handed  down  by  the  apostles  and 
the  holy  doctors.  We  therefore,  after  consultation  with  our 
subjects  and  the  most  learned  priests,  resolved  upon  the 
summoning  of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  we  pray — yea,  God 
Himself,  who  wills  to  lead  all  men  to  the  truth,  prays — that 
your  fatherly  Holiness  will  yourself  appear  at  this  Synod, 
and  come  hither  to  Constantinople,  for  the  confirmation  of 
the  ancient  tradition  in  regard  to  the  venerable  images.  We 
will  receive  your  Holiness  with  all  honours,  provide  you  with 
all  that  is  necessary,  and  provide  for  your  worthy  return 
after  the  work  is  accomplished.  In  case,  however,  your 
Holiness  should  be  unable  personally  to  come  hither,  be 
pleased  to  send  venerable  and  learned  representatives,  that, 
by  a  Synod,  the  tradition  of  the  holy  Fathers  may  be  con 
firmed  and  the  tares  rooted  out,  and  that  henceforth  there 
may  be  no  more  division  in  the  Church.  Moreover,  we  have 
called  here  to  us  Bishop  Constantine  of  Leontium  (in  Sicily), 
who  is  also  known  to  your  fatherly  Holiness,  have  conversed 
with  him  by  word  of  mouth,  and  have  sent  him  to  you  with 
this  edict  (venerabilis  jussio).  When  he  has  come  to  you,  be 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1128 ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  135. 

-  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1076,  1077;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  95,  98. 


348  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

pleased  to  give  him  your  answer  soon,  that  he  may  return  to 
us  and  inform  us  on  what  day  you  will  depart  from  Borne. 
He  will  also  bring  hither  with  him  the  bishop  of  Naples.1 
We  have  commanded  our  representative  in  Sicily  to  take  care 
to  provide  for  your  peace  and  dignity.2 

This  letter,  which  we  now  possess  only  in  the  Latin 
translation  by  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius,  is  dated  IV.  Kal. 
Sept.  Indict,  vii.,  i.e.  August  29,  784.  As,  however,  we  saw 
above  that  Tarasius  was  made  patriarch  on  December  25, 

784,  according  to  this  the  imperial  Sacra  would  have  been 
despatched  four  months  before  his  elevation.     This  is  con 
tradicted  alike  by  Theophanes  (I.e.  p  713)  and  by  the  answer 
of  Pope  Hadrian.      Quite  arbitrary  and  improbable,  however, 
is   the   supposition   of    Christian   Lupus,   that  the    Court   of 
Byzantium  sent  two  letters,  one  after  the  other,  to  the  Pope, 
the  one  just  noticed  and  a  later  one,  and  that  Pope  Hadrian 
sent  two  answers,  and  that  only  his  second  answer  is  extant. 
Pagi    (ad  ann.   785.  3)    opposed  this  hypothesis,  and  drew 
attention  to  the  fact  that  the  seventh    (Ecumenical  Synod 
and    the   ancient   collectors   of   its  Acts  knew  of   only   one 
imperial  letter  to  the  Pope,  and  of  only  one  answer  from 
Hadrian.      At  the  same  time,  that   assumption  was  only  a 
desperate  way  of  escape,  in  order  to  get  out  of  the  chrono 
logical  difficulty  which  lies  in  the  date  given  above.     But 
this  is  easily  got  rid  of,  if  with  Pagi  we  read  Indict,  viii., 
according  to  which  the  imperial  Sacra  was  written  in  August 

785,  a  date  which  suits  quite  well.      That  such  a  correction 
has  to  be  made,  Walch  (S.  532)  had  also  seen  from  Pagi; 
but  he  went  wrong  about  a  full  year,  because  he  made  the 
Indictio  vii.  to  begin  with  September   1,  782,  and  the   8th 
with   September   1,   783.      Moreover,  IV.   Kal.   Sept.  is  not 
August  27,  as  he  supposes,  but  August  29. 

Objections  to  the  genuineness  of  this  imperial  letter  to 
the  Pope  were  raised  by  the  Gallican  Edmond  Kicher  and 
the  Protestants  Spanheim  junior,  and  Basnage,  but  even 
Walch  (S.  532)  found  them  untenable. 

1  By  this  we  must  correct  the  generally  diffused  error  (e.g.,  Pagi,  ad  ann. 
785,  4 ;  Walch,  I.e.  S.  532),  that  the  bishop  of  Naples  was  sent  to  Rome. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  984  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  21  sqq. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR   CONVOCATION   OF   OECUMENICAL   SYNOD.      349 

When  the  envoy  of  Tarasius,  his  priest  and  apocrisiar 
Leo,  arrived  in  Sicily,  the  regent  of  that  place,  at  the  imperial 
command,  gave  him,  as  companions,  Bishop  Theodore  of 
Catanea  and  the  deacon  Epiphanius  (afterwards  deputy 
of  the  archbishop  of  Sardinia  at  the  Council  of  Mcaea),  in 
order  to  convey  to  Eome,  in  common  with  him,  the  imperial 
jussio  (two  jussiones,  indeed,  the  one  regarding  the  Synod  and 
the  other  on  the  recognition  of  Tarasius).  We  learn  this 
from  the  minutes  of  the  second  session  of  Nicaea.1  Bishop 
Constantine  of  Leontium,  on  the  contrary,  who  had  been  sent 
by  Irene,  no  longer  appears,  and  even  Hadrian  makes  no 
reference  to  him  in  the  letter  which  he  sent  in  reply  to  the 
Court.  We  may  perhaps  assume  that  Bishop  Constantine 
fell  sick  on  the  journey  from  Constantinople  to  Sicily,  and 
that  after  the  regent  had  communicated  information  of  this 
to  the  Court,  Bishop  Theodore  and  the  deacon  Epiphanius 
were  named  imperial  envoys  in  the  place  of  Constantine. 

Pope  Hadrian,  on  October  27,  785,  answered  the  two 
rulers  in  a  very  extensive  Latin  letter.  A  Greek  translation 
of  this  was  read  in  the  second  session  of  the  Mcene  Council, 
and  is  still  extant.  But  in  this  reading,  as  Anastasius 
testifies,2  with  the  consent  of  the  legate,  they  cut  off  nearly 
the  last  quarter,  because  in  it,  as  we  shall  see,  Tarasius  was 
blamed  by  the  Pope,  and  this  might  have  been  abused  by  his 
opponents  and  those  of  the  Council  so  as  to  do  an  injury  to 
the  good  cause  itself.  When  Anastasius,  on  undertaking  the 
translation  of  the  Acts  of  Nicaea,  remarked  this,  he  inserted 
in  his  collection  the  Latin  original  of  the  letter  of  Hadrian, 
which  he  naturally  found  in  Eome,  and  we  see  from  this 
that,  in  other  places  also,  the  Greek  translation  contains 
arbitrary  alterations.  In  the  collections  of  the  Councils,  it  is 
found  side  by  side  with  the  original  Latin  text  communicated 
by  Anastasius ; 3  in  the  same  way  as  elsewhere,  there  the 
translation  of  Anastasius  is  given  along  with  the  original 
Greek  text. 

Pope  Hadrian,  in  this  letter,  first  of  all  expresses  his  joy 

1  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p,  1076  sq.;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  95  sq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1073;  Hardouin,  Lc.  p.  94. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1055  sqq.;  Hardouin,  iv.  p.  79  sqq. 


350  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

at  the  return  of  the  two  rulers  to  orthodoxy  and  at  their 
resolution  to  restore  the  veneration  of  images.  If  they  carried 
this  through,  they  would  be  a  new  Constantine  and  a  second 
Helena,  especially  if,  like  them,  they  honoured  the  successor 
of  Peter  and  the  Eoman  Church.  The  Prince  of  the  apostles, 
to  whom  God  had  committed  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosing,  would  therefore  protect  them,  and  subject  all  the 
barbarous  nations  to  them.  The  sacred  authority  (Holy 
Scripture)  declared  the  height  of  his  dignity,  and  what 
reverence  should  be  given  by  all  Christians  to  the  Summa 
sedes  of  Peter.  God  had  placed  this  Claviger  of  the  kingdom 
of  heaven  as  princeps  over  all ;  and  Peter  had  left  his 
primacy,  by  divine  command,  to  his  successors,  and  the 
tradition  of  these  testified  for  the  veneration  of  the  images  of 
Christ,  His  Mother,  the  apostles,  and  all  saints.1  Pope 
Silvester,  in  particular,  testifies  that  from  the  time  when  the 
Christian  Church  began  to  enjoy  rest  and  peace,  the  churches 
had  been  adorned  with  pictures.  An  old  writing  related : 
"  When  Constantine  decided  to  adopt  the  faith,  there 
appeared  to  him  by  night  Peter  and  Paul,  and  said  to  him : 
Because  thou  hast  put  an  end  to  thy  misdeeds,  we  are  sent 
by  Christ  the  Lord  to  counsel  thee  how  thou  canst  regain 
thy  health.  In  order  to  escape  from  thy  persecutions, 
Bishop  Silvester  of  Eome  has  hidden  himself  with  his  clergy 
on  Mount  Soracte.  Call  him  to  thee,  and  he  will  show  thee 
a  pool,  and  when  he  has  dipped  thee  in  it  for  the  third  time,  thy 
leprosy  will  immediately  depart.  In  gratitude  for  this,thou  must 
honour  the  true  God,  and  order  that  in  the  whole  Empire  then 
the  churches  should  be  restored.  Immediately  after  awaking, 
Constantine  sent  to  Silvester,  who,  with  his  clergy,  was 
employed  in  reading  and  prayer  on  a  property  on  Soracte. 
When  he  saw  the  soldiers,  he  thought  he  was  about  to  be 
led  to  martyrdom,  but  Constantine  received  him  in  a  very 
friendly  manner,  and  told  him  of  the  vision  of  the  night, 
adding  :  Who,  then,  are  these  gods  Peter  and  Paul  ?  Silvester 

1  In  this  passage  the  Greek  text  departs  from  the  Latin  principally  in  this, 
that,  along  with  Peter,  it  mentions  also  Paul,  and  designates  the  Roman 
Church  as  the  Church  of  both,  and  weakens  the  expressions  which  testify  for 
the  primacy. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR  CONVOCATION   OF  OECUMENICAL  SYNOD.      351 

corrected  this  error,  and,  at  the  wish  of  the  Emperor, 
had  a  picture  of  the  two  apostles  brought  up,  on  which 
Constantine  cried  aloud :  Yes,  these  he  had  seen,  and  the 
vision  therefore  came  from  the  Holy  Spirit."  This  proved 
the  ancient  use  of  images  in  the  Church,  and  many  heathens 
had  already  been  converted  by  seeing  them.  The  Emperor 
Leo  the  Isaurian  had  been  the  first  who  had  been  misled  and 
had  proclaimed  war  on  the  images  in  Greece,  and  had  caused 
great  vexation.  In  vain  had  Gregory  ir.  and  in.  exhorted 
him,  and  Pope  Zacharias,  Stephen  IL,  Paul,  and  Stephen  in., 
the  Emperors  succeeding  him,  to  restore  the  images.  He 
himself  also,  Hadrian,  had  continually  put  forward  the  same 
request  to  the  present  rulers,  and  renewed  it  with  all  his 
might,  so  that,  as  the  rulers  had  already  done  it,  their  subjects 
might  also  return  to  orthodoxy,  and  become  "  one  flock 
and  one  fold,"  since  then  the  images  would  be  venerated 
again  by  all  the  faithful  in  the  whole  world. 

The  Pope  further  defends  the  veneration  of  images, 
which  had  been  falsely  given  out  as  a  deification  of  them. 
From  the  very  beginning  of  human  history,  he  said,  God  had 
not  rejected  what  men  themselves  had  contrived  in  order  to 
testify  their  reverence  for  Him,  thus  the  sacrifice  of  Abel,  the 
altar  of  Noah,  the  memorial  stone  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xxviii.). 
Thus  Jacob,  of  his  own  impulse,  kissed  the  top  of  the  staff  of 
his  own  son  Joseph  (Heb.  xi.  21,  according  to  the  Vulgate 
[adoravit  fastigium  virgse  ejus])  ;  but  not  in  order  to  do  honour 
to  the  staff,  but  to  testify  his  love  and  reverence  for  the 
bearer  of  the  staff.  In  the  same  manner,  love  and  reverence 
were  paid  by  Christians,  not  to  images  and  colours,  but  to 
those  in  whose  honour  they  were  set  up.  Thus  Moses  had 
cherubim  prepared  for  the  honour  of  God,  and  set  up  a  brazen 
serpent  as  a  sign  (type  of  Christ).  The  prophets,  too,  spoke 
of  the  adornment  of  the  house  of  God  and  of  the  rever 
ence  and  representation  of  the  countenance  of  God  (Ps. 
xxv.  [xxvi.]  8,  xxvi.  [xxvii]  8,  xliv.  [xlv.]  13,  iv.  [v.]  7); 
and  Augustine  said :  Quid  est  imago  Dei,  nisi  vultus  Dei  ? 
Then  follow  beautiful  passages  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Basil, 
Chrysostom,  Cyril,  Athanasius,  Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Stephen 
of  Bostra,  and  Jerome.  Supporting  himself  upon  these 


352  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

patristic  and  biblical  passages,  he  cast  himself  at  the  feet  of 
the  rulers,  and  prayed  them  that  they  would  restore  the 
images  again  in  Constantinople  and  in  the  whole  of  Greece, 
and  follow  the  tradition  of  the  holy  Eoman  Church,  in  order 
to  be  received  into  the  arms  of  this  holy,  catholic,  apostolic, 
and  blameless  Church. 

So  far  the  papal  letter  was  read  aloud  at  Niccea  ;  but 
Anastasius  communicated,  along  with  his  translation  of  the 
Nicene  Acts,  a  further  portion  of  the  letter,  which  is  as 
follows :  "  If,  however,  the  restoration  of  the  images  cannot 
take  place  without  an  (Ecumenical  Synod,  the  Pope  will  send 
envoys,  and  in  their  presence,  before  everything  else,  must 
that  false  assembly  (of  the  year  754)  be  anathematised, 
because  it  was  held  without  the  apostolic  see,  and  had  drawn 
up  wicked  decrees  against  the  images.  In  like  manner  must 
the  Emperor,  the  Empress  his  mother,  the  patriarch,  and  the 
senate,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  transmit  to  the 
Pope  a  pia  sacra  (document),  in  which  they  promise  by  oath 
(at  the  Synod  to  be  held)  to  be  impartial,  and  to  do  no 
violence  to  the  papal  legate  or  any  priest,  but,  on  the  contrary, 
in  every  way  to  honour  and  uphold  them,  and  if  no  union 
could  be  attained,  to  provide  in  the  most  friendly  manner  for 
their  return.  Moreover,  if  the  rulers  would  really  return  to 
the  orthodox  faith  of  the  holy  catholic  Eoman  Church,  then 
they  must  also  again  restore  completely  the  patrimonia  Petri 
(withdrawn  by  the*  previous  Emperors)  and  the  rights  of  con 
secration,  which  belonged  to  the  Eoman  Church  over  the 
archbishops  and  bishops  of  its  whole  diocese  (patriarchate) 
according  to  ancient  right  (cf.  p.  304).  The  Eoman  see  had 
the  primacy  over  all  the  churches  of  the  world,  and  to  that 
belonged  the  confirmation  of  Synods.  Hadrian,  however,  had 
greatly  wondered  that,  in  the  imperial  letter  which  had 
requested  the  confirmation  of  Tarasius,  the  latter  was  named 
universalis  patriarchal  He  did  not  know  whether  this  had 
been  written  per  imperitiam,  aut  schisma  vel  hceresim  iniquorum ; 

1  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius  writes  in  the  preface  to  his  translation  of  the 
Nicene  Acts  :  "  During  my  stay  in  Constantinople  I  often  blamed  the  Greeks 
on  account  of  this  title,  and  accused  them  of  pride.  But  they  replied  that  they 
called  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople  (Ecumenical,  not  in  the  sense  quod 


PREPARATIONS   FOR  CONVOCATION   OF   OECUMENICAL  SYNOD.      353 

but  the  Emperors  should  no  longer  use  this  expression,  for  it 
was  in  opposition  to  the  traditions  of  the  Fathers,  and  if  it 
should  be  meant  by  this,  that  this  universalis  stood  even  above 
the  Eoman  Church,  then  would  he  be  a  rebel  against  the 
sacred  Synods  and  an  evident  heretic.  If  he  were  universalis, 
then  he  must  necessarily  also  possess  the  primacy  which  was 
left  by  Christ  to  Peter,  and  by  him  to  the  Eoman  Church. 
If  any  one  should  call  Tarasius  an  universalis  patriarcha  in 
this  sense,  which,  however,  he  did  not  believe,  he  would  be  a 
heretic  and  a  rebel  against  the  Eoman  Church.  Tarasius  had, 
in  accordance  with  ancient  custom,  sent  a  Synodica  to  the 
Pope,  and  he  rejoiced  at  the  confession  of  the  orthodox  faith 
which  was  contained  in  it  in  regard  also  to  the  holy  images, 
but  it  had  grieved  him  that  Tarasius  had,  from  a  layman  and 
a  booted  soldier  (apocaligus),  been  suddenly  made  patriarch. 
This  was  in  contradiction  to  the  sacred  canons,  and  the  Pope 
would  not  have  been  able  to  assent  to  his  consecration  had 
he  not  been  a  faithful  helper  in  the  restoration  of  the  sacred 
images.  The  whole  of  Christendom  would  rejoice  over  the 
restoration  of  the  images,  and  the  Emperors,  under  the  pro 
tection  of  S.  Peter,  would  then  triumph  over  all  barbarous 
peoples,  just  as  Charles,  the  King  of  the  Franks  and  Lom 
bards,  and  patrician  of  Eome  (the  Pope's  filius  et  spiritualis 
compater),1  who,  following  in  all  things  the  admonitions  of  the 
Pope,  subjected  to  himself  the  barbarous  nations  of  the  West, 
presented  to  the  Church  of  S.  Peter  many  estates,  provinces, 
and  cities,  and  had  given  back  that  which  had  been  seized  by 
the  faithless  Lombards.  He  had  also  offered  to  the  Church 
much  money  and  silver  pro  luminariorum  concinnatione,2  and 
free  alms  to  the  poor,  so  that  his  royal  remembrance  was 
secured  for  all  the  future.  Finally,  the  Emperors  were 
requested  to  give  a  friendly  reception  to  the  bearers  of  this 
letter,  the  Eoman  Archpresbyter  Peter,  and  the  priest  and 
abbot  Peter  of  S.  Sabas,  and  to  let  them  return  uninjured 

universi  orbis  teneat  pr&sulatum,  but  quod  cuidam  parti  prassit  orbis,  for 
oiKovfdvr)  signified  not  merely  the  circle  of  the  world,  but  also  habitation  and 
inhabited  place."  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  983;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  20. 

1  Hadrian  had  baptized  a  son  of  Charles,  A.D.  781,  and  had  then  changed  his 
name  of  Carlmann  into  Pipin. 

2  See  vol.  iv.  p.  98,  note. 

v. —  23 


354  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

with  the  joyful  intelligence  that  the  Emperors  were  persever 
ing  in  the  orthodox  faith,  as  they  had  begun." 

The  Pope  undoubtedly,  at  the  same  time,  addressed  his 
(undated)  letter  to  the  Patriarch  Tarasius,  which  was  read  at 
the  second  session  at  Nicaea  in  a  Greek  translation.  Anas- 
tasius  says  that  the  Greeks  had  also  omitted  much  in  this 
document,  but  that  the  original  text  was  in  the  Eoman 
archives.1  Yet  in  this  case  the  Latin  agrees  with  the  Greek 
in  all  the  principal  points,  for  the  latter  also  contains  the 
fault-finding,  that  Tarasius,  being  a  layman,  had  immediately 
become  patriarch,  and  a  strong  assertor  of  the  Eoman 
primacy.  Indeed,  the  papal  letter  begins  with  fault-finding  on 
that  account.  As,  on  the  one  hand,  he  was  troubled  by  this 
uncanonical  promotion,  so,  on  the  other  side,  was  the  Pope 
rejoiced  by  the  assurance  of  the  orthodoxy  of  Tarasius. 
Without  this  he  could  not  have  accepted  his  Synodica.  He 
praises  him,  and  exhorts  him  to  persevere,  and  remarks  that 
he  had  with  pleasure  resolved  to  send  legates  to  the  contem 
plated  Synod.  But  Tarasius  must  take  measures  that  the 
false  assembly  against  the  images,  which  had  been  held  in 
an  irregular  manner  without  the  apostolic  see,  should  be 
anathematised  in  the  presence  of  the  papal  representatives, 
so  that  all  the  tares  should  be  rooted  out,  and  the  word 
of  Christ  should  be  fulfilled,  who  had  left  the  primacy 
to  the  Koman  Church.  If  Tarasius  would  adhere  to  this 
see,  he  must  take  care  that  the  Emperors  should  have  the 
images  restored  in  the  capital  city  and  everywhere ;  for  if 
this  was  not  done,  he  could  not  recognise  his  consecration. 
Finally,  he  should  give  a  friendly  reception  to  the  papal 
legates.2 

It  was  probably  a  little  later  that  an  answer  to  the 
Synodica  of  Tarasius  arrived  from  the  three  Oriental  patri 
archates.  Evidently  this  did  not  come  from  those  patriarchs 
themselves,3  but  from  Oriental  monks,  because,  as  the  latter 
openly  assert,  the  messengers  of  Tarasius  could  not  reach  the 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1081  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  99. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1077  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  98. 

3  These  were  then  Politian  (Balatianus)  of  Alexandria,  Theodoret  of  Antioch, 
and  Elias  of  Jerusalem. 


PREPARATIONS   FOR   CONVOCATION   OF   (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.      355 

patriarchs  on  account  of  the  enmity  of  the  Arabs.1  The  con 
tents  are  as  follows :  "  When  the  letter  of  Tarasius,  inspired 
by  God,  arrived,  we,  the  last  among  the  inhabitants  of  the 
wilderness  (i.e.  the  monks  in  the  deserts),  were  seized  with 
horror  and  joy  at  the  same  time :  with  horror,  from  fear 
of  those  impious  ones  whom  we  were  forced  to  serve  for  our 
sins ;  but  with  joy,  because  in  that  letter  the  truth  of  the 
orthodox  faith  shines  like  the  rays  of  the  sun.  A  light 
from  on  high,  as  Zacharias  says  (S.  Luke  i.  78),  has  visited 
us,  to  lighten  us  who  sit  in  the  shadow  of  death  (that  is, 
Arabian  impiety),  and  to  guide  our  feet  into  the  way  of  peace. 
It  has  raised  for  us  a  horn  of  salvation,  which  you  (Tarasius) 
are,  and  the  God-loving  rulers  who  occupy  the  second  place 
in  the  Church.  A  wise  and  holy  Emperor  said  :  The  greatest 
gift  which  God  has  bestowed  upon  men  is  the  Sacerdotium 
and  the  Imperium.  The  former  orders  and  guides  the 
heavenly,  the  latter  governs  the  earthly  with  righteous  laws. 
Now,  happily,  the  Sacerdotium  and  the  Imperium  are  united, 
and  we,  who  were  a  reproach  to  our  neighbours  (on  account 
of  the  ecclesiastical  division  between  the  East  and  Byzantium), 
may  again  joyfully  look  up  to  heaven. 

"The  messengers  whom  you  sent  to  the  Oriental  patriarchs, 
under  God's  guidance  met  with  our  brethren  (other  monks),2 
disclosed  to  them  the  aim  of  their  mission,  and  were  by  them 
concealed,  out  of  fear  of  the  enemies  of  the  Cross.  But  those 
monks  did  not  trust  in  their  own  discernment,  but  rather 
sought  counsel,  and  came  to  us  without  the  knowledge  of 
those  whom  they  had  concealed.  After  we  had  sworn  to  them 
to  observe  silence,  they  imparted  the  matter  to  us;  and  we 
prayed  God  for  enlightenment,  and  then  declared  to  them  : 

1  The  superscription  runs  :  "The  d/>x«7>«*  of  the  East  greet  the  most  holy 
Lord  and  Archbishop  Tarasius  of  Constantinople,  (Ecumenical  patriarch." 
If  anyone  translates  apx^peis  by  patriarchs,  he  must  have  found  a  contradiction 
between  this  superscription  and  the  contents,  for  in  this  monks  are  designated 
as  the  authors  of  the  letter.  But  the  word  apxtePe's  designates,  not  merely 
archbishops  and  patriarchs,  but,  even  now  among  the  Greeks,  priests  of  a 
higher  rank  generally,  who  usually  lived  in  monasteries. 

Where  is  not  indicated.  Walch  (S.  553)  supposes  in  Palestine.  I  should 
think,  rather  in  Egypt,  as  the  monk  Thomas,  of  whom  we  hear  later  on, 
belonged  to  an  Egyptian  monastery. 


356  •    HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

As  we  know  the  enmity  of  the  rejected  nation  (the  Saracens), 
those  envoys  should  be  kept  back,  and  not  allowed  to  travel 
to  the  patriarchs ;  on  the  contrary,  they  should  be  brought  to 
us  and  earnestly  exhorted  to  make  no  noise,  as  this  would  bring 
ruin  on  the  now  peaceable  churches  and  the  subject  Christian 
peoples.  Those  envoys,  however,  after  receiving  our  explana 
tion,  were  indignant  with  us.  They  said  they  had  been  sent 
to  give  up  their  lives  for  the  Church,  and  perfectly  to  fulfil 
the  commission  of  the  patriarch  and  the  Emperors.  We 
replied  to  them,  that  there  was  here  no  question  merely  as  to 
their  lives  only,  but  as  to  the  existence  of  the  whole  Church 
in  the  East ;  and  when  they  hesitated  to  return  with  their 
commissions  not  executed,  we  besought  our  brothers  John  and 
Thomas,  the  syncelli  of  the  two  great  patriarchs  (of  Alexandria 
and  Antioch),1  to  travel  with  your  envoys  to  Constantinople, 
to  undertake  their  defence,  and  to  deliver  by  word  of  mouth 
that  which  would  require  too  much  detail  in  writing.  As  the 
patriarch  of  the  see  of  S.  James  (Jerusalem)  had  been  exiled, 
on  account  of  a  trivial  accusation,  to  a  distance  of  2000 
stones  (so  that  no  special  vicar  could  be  appointed  for  him), 
John  and  Thomas  were  appointed  to  bear  testimony  to  the 
apostolic  tradition  of  Egypt  and  Syria  in  Constantinople,  and 
to  do  what  was  required  of  them  there.  (The  messengers 
of  Tarasius  had  already  explained  the  aim  of  the  Synod 
which  was  to  be  held,  and  therefore  a  commission  might  be 
given  to  the  two  monks  referred  to,  which  through  its 
indefiniteness  might  be  offensive.)  They  excused  themselves 
from  defect  of  learning,  but  followed  our  wish,  and  departed 
with  your  envoys.  Receive  them  kindly,  and  present  them 
to  the  Emperors.  They  know  the  tradition  of  the  three 
apostolic  sees,  who  receive  six  (Ecumenical  Synods,  but 
utterly  reject  the  so-called  seventh,  summoned  for  the  destruc- 

1  Thomas,  in  his  subscription  at  the  Council  at  Nicsea,  calls  himself  priest 
and  hegumenus  of  the  monastery  of  S.  Arsenius  in  Egypt.  John,  who  always 
subscribes  before  him,  calls  himself  "priest  and  patriarchal  Syncellus,  repre 
sentative  of  the  three  patriarchs,"  without  intimation  of  the  patriarchate  to 
which  in  specie  he  belonged.  Theophanes,  who  also  (p.  714)  speaks  of  this 
affair,  maintains  that  John  had  been  Syncellus  of  the  patriarch  of  Antioch,  dis 
tinguished  for  virtue  and  knowledge  ;  but  Thomas  he  calls  an  Alexandrian, 
and  remarks  that  he  became  bishop  of  Thessalonica. 


HOLDING   OF   AN   (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD   MISCARRIES.         357 

tion  of  images.  If,  however,  you  celebrate  a  Synod,  you  must 
not  be  restrained  from  holding  it  by  the  absence  of  the  three 
patriarchs  and  the  bishops  subject  to  them,  for  they  are  not 
voluntarily  wanting,  but  in  consequence  of  the  threats  and 
injuries  of  the  Saracens.  In  the  same  way,  they  were  absent 
from  the  sixth  Synod  for  the  same  reason ;  and  yet  this  in  no 
way  diminished  the  importance  of  that  Council,  particularly 
as  the  Pope  of  Rome  gave  his  assent,  and  was  present  by 
his  deputy.  For  the  confirmation  of  our  letter,  and  in  order 
to  convince  you  perfectly  (of  the  orthodoxy  of  the  East),  we 
present  the  Synodica  which  the  Patriarch  Theodore  of 
Jerusalem  of  blessed  memory  sent  to  Cosmas  of  Alexandria 
and  Theodore  of  Antioch,  and  in  return  for  which  he  received, 
during  his  lifetime,  Synodic?e  from  them." l 

This  Synodica  of  the  departed  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  was 
probably  intended  to  supply  the  lack  of  a  special  deputy  from 
this  diocese.  It  begins  with  a  very  lengthy  orthodox  con 
fession  of  faith,  then  recognises  the  six  (Ecumenical  Synods, 
and  regards  any  other  as  superfluous,  as  those  six  had  com 
pletely  exhausted  the  tradition  of  the  Fathers,  and  nothing 
was  to  be  added  or  could  improve  it.  After  several  anathemas 
on  the  heretics,  from  their  head,  Simon  Magus,  down  to  the 
tail,  the  veneration  of  the  saints  (-rifjiav  KOI  irpocncvveiv  rou? 
dytovs  KOI  ao-Trd^eaOat)  is  declared  to  be  an  apostolic  tra 
dition,  a  healing  power  is  ascribed  to  their  relics,  and  an 
inference  is  drawn  from  the  Incarnation  of  Christ,  justifying 
the  representation  of  Him  in  images  and  the  veneration  of 
those  images.  There  is  added  to  this  a  defence  of  the  images 
of  Mary  and  the  apostles,  etc.,  by  reference  to  the  cherubim 
which  Moses  caused  to  be  made.2 


SEC.  346.    The  First  Attempt  at  the  holding  of  an  (Ecumenical 
Synod  miscarries. 

After  the  Roman  and  Oriental  envoys  had  arrived  in 
Constantinople,  the  rulers  summoned  also  the  bishops  of  their 
kingdom.  As,  however,  the  Synod  could  not  be  opened  at 

1  Mansi,  Lc.  p.  1128  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  135  sqq. 

-  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1136  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  142  sqq.     Cf.  above,  p.  329. 


358  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

once  on  account  of  the  absence  of  the  Court  in  Thrace,  this 
was  made  use  of  by  the  still  considerable  number  of  enemies 
of  the  images l  among  the  bishops,  in  union  with  many  laymen, 
to  hinder  the  meeting  of  the  Synod  and  to  maintain  the 
prohibition  of  the  Synod.  At  the  same  time,  they  intrigued 
against  the  Patriarch  Tarasius,  and  held  several  assemblies. 
But  he  forbade  this  on  canonical  grounds,  under  penalty  of 
deposition,  whereupon  they  withdrew.2 

Soon  afterwards  the  rulers  returned  from  Thrace,  and  fixed 
the  17th  of  August  for  the  opening  of  the  Synod,  in  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles  at  Constantinople.3  On  the  previous 
day  many  military  men  assembled  in  the  \ovrrjp  (either 
baptistry  or  porch,  in  which  the  font,  Xovrrjp,  stood)  of  the 
Church  of  the  Apostles,4  and  protested  with  great  noise  and 
tumult  against  the  holding  of  the  new  Synod.  Nevertheless 
it  was  opened  on  the  following  day.5  The  Patriarch  Tarasius 
assumed  the  presidency,6  and  the  rulers  looked  on  from  the  place 
of  the  catechumens.  The  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  referring  to 
the  images  were  considered,  and  the  arguments  for  and  against 
the  veneration  of  images  examined.  The  Abbot  Plato  par 
ticularly  distinguished  himself  by  delivering  from  the  ambo 
a  discourse  in  defence  of  the  images,  at  the  request  of  Tarasius. 
Naturally,  the  new  Synod  decided  to  declare  the  earlier  one 
of  the  year  754  invalid,  and  to  this  end  caused  the  older 

1  The  principal  authority  on  these  events,  the  (rvyypa<f>ri  among  the  Acts  of 
the  seventh  S}7nod,  calls  them  Xpia-navoKaTTjydpovs  =  accusers  of  the  Christians, 
because  they  charged  the  Christians  with  idolatry,  and  says  that  there  were  many 
of  them.    The  Patriarch  Tarasius,  on  the  contrary,  at  the  first  session  of  Nicsea, 
speaks  of  "bishops  easily  numbered,  whose  names  he  willingly  passed  over." 

2  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  534,  interprets  this  to  mean  that  they  had  left 
the  city  ;  but  that  which  follows  shows  that  they  remained  in  the  place  and 
continued  to  intrigue. 

3  Built  by  Constantino  the  Great,  renovated  and  splendidly  decorated  by 
Justinian  and  his  consort.     It  lies  in  the  interior  of  the  city.     It  contained  also 
the  graves  of  the  Emperors.      It  was  plundered  by  the  Latins,  A.D.  1204,  and 
destroyed  by  the  Turks,  A.D.  1463. 

4  The  ffvyypafy-f)  says  :  dv  rC)  \ovTTjpi  rrjs  aylas  Ka.6o\iK7)s  {KKXytrias,  which  does 
not,  however,  mean  the  cathedral. 

5  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  714)  gives  August  17  expressly.     Schlosser  (S.   283) 
gives,  erroneously,  the  7th  ;  when  Tarasius  says,  it  took  place  /card  ras 

TOV  AvyofoTov,  this  is  a  vague  statement. 

6  So  he  says  himself,  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1000;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  34. 


CONVOCATION  OF  THE  SYNOD  OF  NIC^A.        359 

canons  to  be  read,  according  to  which  an  (Ecumenical  Synod 
could  not  be  held  without  the  participation  of  the  other 
patriarchs.1  But  in  agreement  with  the  few  bishops  who 
were  hostile  to  the  images,  and  incited  by  their  officers,  the 
soldiers  of  the  imperial  bodyguard,  posted  before  the  church 
doors,  who  had  served  under  Copronymus,  pushed  with  a 
great  noise  into  the  interior  of  the  church,  marched  with 
naked  weapons  up  to  the  bishops,  and  threatened  to  kill  them 
all,  along  with  the  patriarch  and  the  monks.  The  Emperors 
immediately  sent  some  high  Court  officials  to  rebuke  them 
and  bid  them  be  at  peace,  but  they  answered  with  insults, 
and  refused  obedience.  Upon  this,  Tarasius  withdrew  with 
the  bishops  from  the  nave  of  the  church  into  the  sanctuary 
(which  with  the  Greeks,  as  is  well  known,  is  shut  off  by  a 
wall),  and  the  rulers  declared  the  Synod  dissolved.  The 
enemies  of  the  images  among  the  bishops  then  cried  out 
joyfully,  "  We  have  conquered,"  and  with  their  friends  com 
mended  the  so-called  seventh  Synod.  Many  bishops  now 
departed,  among  them  the  papal  legates. 

SEC.  347.  Convocation  of  the  Synod  of  Niccea. 

When  the  legates  arrived  in  Sicily,  they  were  called  back 
to  Constantinople,  for  Irene  had  not  given  up  the  project  of 
a  Synod,  and  had  got  rid  of  her  mutinous  bodyguard  by  a 
stratagem.  She  pretended  an  expedition  against  the  Arabs, 
and  the  whole  Court  removed,  in  September  786,  with  the 
bodyguard,  to  Malagina  in  Thrace.  Other  troops,  under 
trustworthy  leaders,  had  therefore  to  be  brought  into  Con 
stantinople;  another  bodyguard  was  formed,  those  insubordinate 
ones  were  disarmed  and  sent  back  to  their  native  provinces.2 

1  The  meaning  is  plain:  "The  iconoclastic  Synod  of  the  year  754  is  not 
(Ecumenical,  because  at  the  beginning  no  patriarch  was  present,  and  afterwards 
only  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople."  Schlosser  (S.  285)  did  not  understand 
this,  and  built  upon  the  misunderstanding  the  highly  arbitrary  hypothesis, 
that  it  was  meant  by  those  words  to  represent  the  two  monks  John  and 
Thomas  as  deputies  of  the  Oriental  patriarchs,  and  this  had  rendered  the 
soldiers  (the  sensitive  janissaries)  indignant. 

The  lamentation  of  Schlosser  over  this  is  derided  by  Damberger,  Synchron. 
Gesch.  Bd.  ii.,  KritiTcheft,  S.  184. 


360  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

After  this  was  done,  Irene  sent  messengers  through  the  whole 
Empire,  in  May  787,  to  summon  the  bishops  to  a  new  Synod 
at  Nicaea  in  Bithynia.  That  the  Pope  gave  his  assent  to  this 
is  clear  from  what  has  been  said,  from  his  letters  to  the  Court 
and  to  Tarasius,  and  from  the  sending  of  his  legates.  Moreover, 
he  afterwards  said  expressly  in  his  letter  to  Charles  the  Great  : 
Et  sic  synodum  istam  secundum  nostram  ordinationem  fecerunt.1 
The  reasons  for  choosing  Nicsea  are  evident.  Con 
stantinople  itself  necessarily  seemed  unsuitable  after  what 
had  happened  the  year  before,  and  because,  perhaps,  many 
enemies  of  the  images  lived  there.  Nicaea,  on  the  other 
hand,  wras  not  very  far  removed  from  the  capital  city,  so  that 
a  connection  between  the  Synod  and  the  Court  could  be 
effected  without  much  difficulty,  and  had,  besides,  the  memory 
of  the  first  most  highly  esteemed  (Ecumenical  Council,  under 
Constantine  the  Great,  in  its  favour  ;  and  moreover,  the 
fourth  (Ecumenical  Synod  (of  Chalcedon)  was  first  summoned 
to  Nicaaa,  and  was  only  removed  to  Chalcedon  because  of 
intervening  circumstances  (see  vol.  iii.  pp.  278  and  283). 
Moreover,  similar  circumstances  brought  it  about,  in  the  case 
of  the  present  Synod,  that  the  eighth  and  last  session  was 
celebrated  on  October  23,  787,  in  the  imperial  palace  at 
Constantinople.  The  Empress  and  her  son  were  not  per 
sonally  present  at  the  sessions  of  Mcaea,  but  were  represented 
by  two  high  officers  of  State,  the  patricius  and  ex-consul 
Petronus,  and  the  imperial  ostiarius  (chamberlain)  and  logo- 
thetes  (chancellor  of  the  military  chancery)  John.  Nicephorus, 
subsequently  patriarch,  was  appointed  secretary.  Among  the 
spiritual  members,  the  two  Koman  legates,  the  Archpresbyter 
Peter  and  the  Abbot  Peter  (p.  353)  are  regularly  placed  first 
in  the  Acts,  and  first  after  them  the  Patriarch  Tarasius  of 
Constantinople,  and  then  the  two  Oriental  monks  and  priests 
John  and  Thomas,  as  representatives  of  the  patriarchates  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  From  the  transactions 


1  We  owe  this  information  (besides  the  already  quoted  a-iryypa^)  to  Theo- 
phanes  (I.e.),  to  the  Patriarch  Tarasius  (Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1000;  Hardouin,  I.e. 
p.  34),  to  the  biography  of  Plato  by  Theodore  Studites  (Ada  SS.,  April, 
t.  i.  p.  366  sqq.),  to  the  Vita  Tarasii,  in  Baron,  ad  ann.  786,  2,  and  to  a  letter 
of  Hadrian,  in  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  808;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  818. 


CONVOCATION   OF  THE   SYNOD   OF  NIC^A.  361 

themselves,  we  learn  that  Tarasius  essentially  conducted  the 
business,  as  also  the  Sicilian  bishops  nominated  him,  at  the 
first  session,  rbv  Trpo/caOe^o/jLevov.1 

The  question  has  often  been  brought  up,  with  what  right 
did  those  two  monks,  John  and  Thomas,  act  at  Mcsea  as 
representatives  of  the  Oriental  patriarchs,  since,  as  we  saw, 
information  of  the  summoning  of  the  Synod  had  never  been 
brought  to  those  patriarchs  ?  Here  was  undeniable  deception 
and  falsehood.2  But  the  letter  of  the  Oriental  monks,  which 
gives  the  whole  history  of  the  matter  in  a  thoroughly  un 
adorned  and  circumstantial  manner,  was  read  at  the  second 
session  of  Nicsea,  so  that  not  one  person  could  believe  that 
John  and  Thomas  had  been  sent  directly  by  the  Oriental 
patriarchs.  The  dpxiepeis,  by  whom  they  were  deputed,  and 
who  are  named  in  the  superscription,  as  we  remarked  above 
(p.  354),  were  not  patriarchs,  but  monk -priests  of  higher 
rank,  who  acted  sedibus  impeditis  instead  of  the  inaccessible 
patriarchs.  The  necessity  of  the  case  would  justify  this. 
John  and  Thomas,  however,  subscribed  at  Niccea  not  as 
vicars  of  the  patriarchs  (qua  persons),  but  of  the  apostolic 
sees  (Opovoi  —  churches)  of  the  East,3  and  they  might  properly 
be  so  designated  materially,  for,  in  union  with  the  two  letters 
which  they  brought  with  them,  they  represented,  in  fact,  the 
faith  of  the  three  Oriental  patriarchates  in  regard  to  the 
images  and  the  veneration  of  them.  Apart  from  them  and 
the  Eoman  legates,  all  present  were  subjects  of  the  Byzantine 
kingdom.  The  number  of  the  members,  partly  bishops, 
partly  representatives  of  bishops,  is  given  by  the  ancients  as 
between  330  and  367;  and  when  the  almost  contemporaneous 
patriarch  Nicephorus  speaks  only  of  150,4  this  is  evidently 
incorrect,  since  the  still  extant  minutes  of  the  Synod  give  not 

1  On  the  convoking  of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod,  and  the  presidium 
at  the  same,  there  is  a  special  treatise  by  Natalis  Alexander,  Hist.  Eccl.  Diss.  iii. 
in  Sec.  viii.  t.  vi.  p.  83  sqq.,  ed.  Venet.   1778.     Of.  Hist,  of  Councils,  vol.  i. 
pp.  14  and  30. 

2  Cf.  Walch,  Bd.  x.  S.  551-558. 

3  The  sees  founded  by  the  apostles  in  the  East  are,  like  the  Roman,  called 
apostolic. 

4  In   his  letter  to    Pope   Leo   in.,  in   Mansi,   t.    xiv.    p.    50;    Hardouin 
t.  iv.  p.  995. 


362  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

fewer  than  308  bishops  and  representatives  of  bishops  as 
subscribers  of  the  decrees  of  Mcsea.  Besides,  as  the  Acts  here 
and  there  indicate,  there  were  also  present  a  good  many 
monks  and  clerics  not  entitled  to  vote.  The  Patriarch 
Tarasius  also  speaks  of  archimandrites  and  hegumeni  and 
a  Tr\r)0v<;  fjLovax&v.1  Several  imperial  secretaries  and  clerics 
of  Constantinople  also  acted  as  officials  of  the  Synod. 

SEC.  348.   The  First  Session  of  Niccea. 

After  the  bishops  had  arrived  in  Mcsea,  during  the 
summer  of  787,  the  first  session  was  held  there,  September 
24,  787,  in  the  Church  of  S.  Sophia.2  As  was  usual,  here 
also  the  books  of  the  holy  Gospels  were  solemnly  placed 
upon  a  throne.  In  front  of  the  ambo  sat  the  two  imperial 
commissaries  and  the  archimandrites  etc.,  who  had  no  right 
to  vote.  At  the  wish  of  the  Sicilian  bishops,  the  Patriarch 
Tarasius  opened  the  transactions  with  a  short  speech,  as 
follows :  "  At  the  beginning  of  August  in  the  previous  year, 
it  had  been  wished  to  hold  a  Synod  under  his  presidency, 
in  the  Church  of  the  Apostles  at  Constantinople ;  but  through 
the  fault  of  some  bishops,  who  could  easily  be  numbered,  but 
whom  he  would  not  name,  as  every  one  knew  them,  they 
had  been  hindered  by  force.  The  gracious  rulers  had 
therefore  summoned  a  new  Synod  to  Nicsea,  and  Christ 
would  reward  them  for  this.  This  Helper  the  bishops 
should  also  invoke,  and  in  all  uprightness,  without  dis 
cursiveness,  deliver  a  righteous  judgment."3  This  warning 
against  discursiveness  was  very  much  in  place  because  of  the 
loquacity  of  the  Greeks,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
profited  much,  for  the  Acts  of  our  Synod  are  full  of 
examples  of  unnecessary  logomachy. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  474,  and  t.  xii.  p.  1052;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  521  and  75. 

2  Its  Acts  in  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.   992-1052,  and  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  27-75. 
Theoplianes,  who  was  himself  present  at  this  Synod,  gives  the  llth  October  as 
the  date  of  the  first  session  (p.  717)  ;  but  the  synodal  Acts  must  receive  the 
preference  as  authorities,  particularly  as  they  give  the  date  at  each  session, 
and   yet  must   often  have  been  wrong,   since  they  place  six  sessions  before 
October  11. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1000  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  33. 


THE    FIRST   SESSION   OF   NIOEA.  363 

After  Tarasius  had  ended  his  speech,  three  bishops, — 
Basil  of  Ancyra,  Theodore  of  Myra,  and  Theodosius  of 
Amorium, — who  had  hitherto  been  enemies  of  the  images, 
were  introduced  and  placed  before  the  Synod.  Before  they 
were  permitted  to  answer  for  themselves,  another  imperial 
Sacra  was  read,  the  publication  of  which,  as  we  know 
(p.  352),  had  been  required  by  Pope  Hadrian.  It  contained, 
in  accordance  with  ancient  usage,  the  assurance  that  every 
member  of  the  Synod  was  allowed  to  speak  quite  freely  and 
without  hindrance,  according  to  his  conviction ; l  then  gives 
information  of  the  resignation  of  the  Patriarch  Paul  and  of 
the  election  of  Tarasius,  together  with  the  desire  of  both  for 
reunion  with  the  rest  of  the  Church,  and  after  the  holding  of 
an  (Ecumenical  Synod ;  and  mentions,  finally,  the  letters  of 
the  Pope  and  of  the  Oriental  archpriests,  which  were  soon  to 
be  read  aloud  in  the  Synod.2 

Upon  this,  the  three  bishops  who  had  hitherto  been 
hostile  to  the  images  begged  forgiveness,  and  read  a  formula 
of  faith  and  recantation,3  whereupon  they  were  received 
into  fellowship,  and  assigned  their  place  in  the  Synod. 
Seven  other  bishops  then  entered,  who,  a  year  before, 
had  contributed  to  frustrate  the  intended  Synod,  and  had 
held  separate  assemblies — namely,  Hypatius  of  Nicsea,  Leo 
of  Ehodes,  Gregory  of  Pessinus,  Leo  of  Iconium,  George  of 
Pisidia,  Nicolas  of  Hierapolis,  and  Leo  of  the  island  of 
Carpathus.  They  had  erred,  they  said,  only  from  ignorance, 
and  were  ready  to  confess  and  confirm  the  faith  handed 
down  from  the  apostles  and  Fathers.  The  Synod  was 
doubtful  whether  they  should  be  admitted  to  communion, 
and  therefore  they  had  many  older  ecclesiastical  maxims 
read,  particularly  canons  of  the  apostles  and  of  different 
Councils,  also  judgments  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
respecting  the  receiving  back  of  heretics.  On  this  occasion, 
John,  one  of  the  vicars  of  the  Oriental  patriarchates,  declared 

1  Schlosser  (S.  291)  misunderstood  the  contents  of  this  Sacra. 

-  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1001  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  35  sqq. 

3  Schlosser  (I.e.  S.  292)  is  surprised  that  this  formula  contained  not  a  word 
on  the  most  important  doctrines  of  the  faith,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  so  much 
the  more  in  respect  to  the  veneration  of  images.  But  the  latter  was  the  only 
matter  in  question. 


364  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

that  the  veneration  of  images  was  the  worst  of  all  heresies, 
"  because  it  detracted  from  the  Economy  (Incarnation)  of  the 
Eedeemer."  Tarasius,  however,  drew  from  the  passages  read 
the  conclusion,  that  the  seven  bishops  should  be  received,  if 
no  other  fault  attached  to  them.  Many  members  of  the 
Synod  called  out  together :  "  We  have  all  erred ;  we  all  pray 
for  forgiveness."  The  question  was  then  proposed,  whether 
those  who  had  obtained  ordination  from  heretics  should  be 
received  again ;  but  before  the  books  necessary  for  this 
subject  arrived,  they  proceeded  with  the  presentation  of 
proofs  of  the  first  kind  on  the  reception  of  heretics 
generally.  Finally  the  wished  -  for  books  arrived,  and  they 
read  from  the  Church  histories  of  Eufinus,  Socrates,  and 
Theodore  the  lector,  from  the  Acts  of  Chalcedon,  from  the 
Vita  S.  Sabce,  etc.,  proofs  that,  in  earlier  times,  those  who 
had  been  ordained  by  heretics  had  been  received  again.  The 
actual  admission  of  the  seven  bishops,  however,  was  deferred 
until  a  later  session.1 


SEC.  349.   The  Second  Session. 

When  the  second  session  began,  September  26,  at  the 
command  of  the  Court  an  imperial  official  presented  to  the 
Synod  Bishop  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea,  who  had  also  formerly 
been  hostile  to  the  images,  but  now  wished  to  return  to 
orthodoxy.  Tarasius,  however,  treated  him  with  some 
harshness,  and  seemed  to  doubt  his  sincerity.  But  when 
Gregory  gave  the  best  assurances  and  lamented  his  former 
errors,  he  was  required  to  appear  again  at  the  next  session 
and  to  present  a  written  statement.  After  this  the  letter  of 
Pope  Hadrian,  of  October  27,  785,  to  the  Emperors,  already 
known  to  us,  was  read  aloud  (p.  349),  although  not  in  its 
entirety ;  and  the  Eoman  legates,  at  the  request  of  Tarasius, 
testified  that  they  had  received  this  letter  from  the  hand  of 
the  apostolic  Father  himself.  This  testimony  was  confirmed 
by  Bishop  Theodore  of  Catanea  and  deacon  Epiphanius,  who 
had  conveyed  the  imperial  Jussio  to  Eome,  and  had  been 
present  at  the  delivery  of  the  papal  answer  (see  p.  349). 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1008-1052  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  39-75. 


THE  THIRD   SESSION.  365 

In  the  same  way,  the  letter  of  Hadrian  to  Tarasius  was 
read,  and  at  the  request  of  the  Roman  legates  the  latter 
declared  that  he  was  in  agreement  with  the  doctrine 
contained  in  the  letter,  and  accepted  the  veneration  of  the 
images.  "  We  reverence  them,"  he  says,  "  with  relative 
regard  (rat/ras  crytTiKtp  7ro#&>  irpoa-KWov^ev),  since  they  are 
made  in  the  name  of  Christ  and  of  His  inviolate  Mother,  of 
the  holy  angels  and  all  saints :  Our  \arpeia  and  TT/O-T^, 
however,  we  evidently  dedicate  to  God  alone." x  When  all 
exclaimed :  "  Thus  believes  the  whole  Synod,"  the  Eoman 
legates  demanded  a  special  vote  on  the  recognition  of  the  two 
papal  letters  which  had  been  read,  and  this  followed  in  263 
votes,  partly  representative  and  partly  personal,  of  the 
bishops  and  representatives  of  bishops  (with  exception  of  the 
legates  themselves  and  Tarasius,  who  had  declared  himself 
already).  Finally,  Tarasius  asked  the  monks  present  to  give 
their  assent  individually,  which  was  then  done.  Thus  ended 
the  second  session.2 


SEC.  350.    The  Third  Session. 

In  the  third  session,  according  to  the  Greek  Acts  on  the 
28th,  according  to  Anastasius  on  the  29th,  of  September, 
Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea  handed  in  and  read  the  declaration 
of  faith  in  writing  which  had  been  required  of  him.  It 
was  nothing  else  but  a  repetition  of  that  which  Basil  of 
Ancyra  and  his  colleagues  had  presented  at  the  first  session. 
Before,  however,  Gregory  was  received  into  favour,  Tarasius 
remarked  that  he  had  heard  that  some  bishops  in  earlier 
times  (under  Copronymus)  had  persecuted  and  ill  -  treated 
some  pious  venerators  of  images.  He  would  not  believe 
this  without  proof  (probably  he  had  Bishop  Gregory  in  such 
suspicion),  but  he  must  remark  that  the  apostolic  canons 
punished  such  an  offence  with  deposition.  Several  members 
of  the  Synod  agreed  with  him,  and  it  was  resolved  that,  if 
anyone  should  bring  forward  such  complaints,  he  was  to 


1  In  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1086,  instead  of  the  meaningless  dvand^fjievov,  we  read 
Ti6efj.evoi. 

2  Mansi,  t.  xii.  pp.  1052-1112  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  75-123. 


366  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

present  himself  immediately  to  Tarasius  or  the  Synod.  As, 
however,  Gregory  of  Neo-Caesarea  gave  the  assurance  that  in 
this  respect  he  was  quite  blameless,  the  Synod  declared  itself 
ready  to  receive  him,  although  several  monks  intimated  that 
he  had  been  one  of  the  heads  of  the  false  Council  of  the 
year  754.  Mildness  prevailed,  and  along  with  Gregory,  at 
the  same  time,  the  bishops  of  Ehodes,  Iconium,  Hierapolis, 
Pessinus,  and  Carpathus  were  received,  and  assigned  to  their 
seats.1 

The  Synodica  addressed  by  Tarasius  to  the  patriarchs  of 
the  East  was  then  read  (see  p.  346),  together  with  the  answer 
of  the  Oriental  apxiepeis  and  the  Synodica  of  the  departed 
patriarch,  Theodore  of  Jerusalem  (see  p.  354);  and  the 
Roman  legates  declared,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  whole 
assembly,  that  these  Oriental  letters  were  completely  in  har 
mony  with  the  doctrine  of  Pope  Hadrian  and  of  the  Patriarch 
Tarasius.2  The  words  employed  at  this  voting  by  Bishop 
Constantine  of  Cons  tan  tia,  free  from  deception  as  they 
were,  gave  occasion,  subsequently,  at  Cyprus,  to  the  most 
violent  reproaches  against  the  Mcene  Synod.  He  said :  "  I 
assent  to  these  declarations  now  read,  I  receive  and  greet 
with  all  reverence  the  sacred  images ;  the  Trpocncvvrjais  Kara 
\arpetav,  i.e.  the  adoration,  I  offer  to  the  Holy  Trinity  alone." 
By  false  translation  and  misunderstanding  the  Frankish 
bishops  subsequently,  at  the  Synod  of  Frankfort,  A.D.  794, 
and  also  in  the  Carolingian  books  (iii.  17),  understood  this  to 
mean  that  a  demand  had  been  made  at  Nicaea  that  the  same 
devotion  should  be  offered  to  the  images  as  to  the  Most  Holy 
Trinity. 

SEC.  351.   The  Fourth  Session. 

The  fourth  session,  on  October  1,  was  intended  to  prove 
the  legitimacy  of  the  veneration  of  images  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  Fathers.  On  the  proposal  of  Tarasius, 
there  was  read  by  the  secretaries  and  officials  of  the  Synod  a 

1  It  is  certainly  only  by  an  oversight  that  Bishop  George  of  Pisidia  is  not 
again  named.     See  p.  363. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  1113-1154  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  123-158. 


THE  FOURTH   SESSION.  36*7 

great  series  of  biblical  and  patristic  passages  bearing  on  this 
subject,  which  partly  had  been  collected  beforehand  and 
partly  were  now  presented  by  individual  members  of  the 
Synod.  The  biblical  passages  were  : 

(1)  Exodus  xxv.    17-22,  and   Numbers  vii.   88,   89,  in 
regard  to  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  mercy-seat,  and  the 
cherubims  which  were  over  it. 

(2)  Ezekiel  xli.  1,  18,  19,  on  the  cherubim  with  faces,  and 
the  palms,  etc.,  which  Ezekiel  beheld  in  the  new  temple  of  God. 

(3)  Hebrews  ix.  1—5,  where  Paul  speaks  of  the  tabernacle, 
and  of  the  objects  contained  in  it :  the  golden  pot  with  the 
manna,  Aaron's  rod,  the  tables  of  the  law,  and  the  cherubim. 

Tarasius  then  remarked :  "  Even  the  Old  Testament  had  its 
divine  symbols,  the  cherubim ;  and  from  this  they  went  on  to 
the  New  Testament.  And  if  the  Old  Testament  had  cheru 
bim  which  overshadowed  the  mercy-seat,  we  might  also  have 
images  of  Christ  and  of  the  saints  to  overshadow  our  mercy- 
seat."  Further,  he  pointed  out,  as  did  Bishop  Constantine  of 
Constantia,  in  Cyprus,  that  even  the  cherubim  of  the  Old 
Testament  had  a  human  countenance ;  and  the  angels,  as  often 
as  they  appeared  to  men,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Holy 
Scripture,  appeared  in  human  form.  Moses,  indeed,  had  so 
formed  the  cherubim  (Ex.  xxv.),  as  they  were  shown  to  him  in 
the  mount.  The  prohibition  of  images  had  first  been  pub 
lished  by  God  when  the  Israelites  showed  themselves  inclined 
to  idolatry.  John,  one  of  the  vicars  from  the  East,  remarked 
that  God  Himself  had  appeared  to  Jacob  in  human  form,  and 
had  wrestled  with  him  (Gen.  xxxii.  24). 

The  series  of  patristic  proofs  is  opened  by  a  passage  from 
the  panegyric  of  Chrysostom  on  Meletius,  in  which  it  is  said 
that  the  faithful  had  made  representations  of  this  saint  upon 
their  rings,  cups,  shells,  on  the  walls  and  everywhere.  A 
second  passage  from  another  discourse  of  Chrysostom  alludes 
to  the  picture  of  an  angel  who  drove  out  the  barbarians. 
There  was  also  read  from  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  how,  at  the  sight 
of  a  picture  of  the  offering  of  Isaac,  he  had  been  forced  to 
weep ;  and  Bishop  Basil  of  Ancyra  at  this  justly  remarked, 
that  this  father  had  often  read  this  history  in  the  Bible 
without  weeping,  whilst  the  representation  of  it  in  a  picture 


368  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

had  moved  him  to  tears.  "  If  this  happened  to  a  learned 
man,"  added  the  monk  John,  "  how  much  more  must  it  be 
useful  to  the  unlearned,  that  they  may  be  touched  ! "  "  Yes," 
exclaimed  Bishop  Theodore  of  Catanea  ;  "  and  how  much  more 
must  men  be  touched  by  a  picture  of  the  sufferings  of  Christ !  " 
Eepresentations  of  the  offering  of  Isaac  are  treated  in  a 
passage  of  S.  Cyril  of  Alexandria;  a  poem  of  Gregory  of 
Nazianzus  speaks  of  a  picture  of  S.  Polemon,  by  looking  at 
which  an  immodest  woman  was  converted ;  a  discourse  of 
Antipater  of  Bostra  refers  to  the  statue  which  the  woman 
who  was  healed  by  Christ  of  the  issue  of  blood  caused  to  be 
erected.1  A  great  fragment  of  Bishop  Asterius  of  Amasia 
gives  a  full  description  of  a  picture  representing  the  martyr 
dom  of  S.  Euphemia.  Next  came  two  passages  from  the 
martyrdom  and  the  miracles  of  the  Persian  martyr  Anastasius 
(f627),  which  speak  of  the  custom  of  setting  up  images  in 
the  churches,  as  well  as  testify  to  the  veneration  of  relics, 
and  moreover,  of  the  divine  punishment  which  smote  a 
despiser  of  relics  at  Ceesarea.  A  pretended  discourse  of 
Athanasius  describes  the  miracle  at  Berytus,  where  the  Jews 
pierced  a  picture  of  Christ  with  a  lance,  on  which  blood  and 
water  ran  out.  They  collected  this,  and,  as  all  the  sick  who 
were  touched  with  this  became  well,  the  whole  city  received 
the  Christian  faith.2 

A  passage  was  read  from  the  letter  of  S.  Nilus  to  Helio- 
dore,  relating  that  the  holy  martyr  Plato  had  appeared  to 
a  young  monk  in  a  vision  just  as  he  had  seen  him  in 
pictures ;  upon  which  Bishop  Theodore  of  Myra  remarked 
that  the  same  had  happened  to  his  pious  archdeacon  in 
regard  to  S.  Nicolas.  As,  however,  the  enemies  of  the 
images  also  appealed  to  Nilus,  the  passage  used  by  them  from 
his  letter  to  Olympiodorus  was  also  read.  Nilus  certainly  in 
this  letter  blames  some  kinds  of  images  in  churches  and 
monasteries,  namely,  representations  of  hares,  goats,  beasts  of 

1  Of.   the  author's  treatise  on  Representations  of  Christ  (Christusbilder]  in 
Wetzer  and  Welte's  Kir 'chen lexicon,  s.v. ;  and  his  Beitrdge  zur  Kirchengeschichte, 
Bd.  ii,  S.  256  f. 

2  Cf.  the  author's  Beitrdge  zur  Kirchenges.  Bd.  ii.  S.  258  f.;  Kirchenkx.  u.s.\ 
Pagi,  ad  ann.  787,  5. 


THE   FOURTH   SESSION.  369 

every  kind,  from  hunting  and  fishing,  and  recommends  instead 
the  simple  figure  of  the  cross ;  but  he  also  commends  the 
historical  representations,  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
on  the  walls  of  the  churches  for  the  instruction  of  the 
unlearned  ;  and  this  very  clause  was  omitted  by  the  enemies  of 
the  images  when  they  brought  forward  the  passage  (A.D.  754), 
as  several  bishops  now  maintained.  Another  passage  from  the 
transactions  between  the  Abbot  Maximus  and  the  Mono th elite 
deputies  sent  to  him,  Theodorius  of  Caesarea,  etc.  (see  p.  131), 
showed  that  both  the  latter  and  also  that  learned  abbot  had 
reverenced  the  Gospels  and  the  images  of  Christ,  and  the 
Oriental  deputy  John  remarked  that  the  images  must  be  neces 
sary,  or  they  would  not  have  been  venerated  by  those  men. 

Naturally,  an  appeal  was  made  to  the  eighty-two  Trullan 
canons  on  the  images.  They  were  ascribed  to  the  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Synod,  whilst  Tarasius  maintained  that  the  same 
Fathers  who  constituted  this  Synod  had  again  assembled,  four 
or  five  years  later  (i.e.  685  or  686),  and  had  drawn  up 
canons.  That  this  was  a  mistake  we  have  already  shown 
(p.  221).  As,  however,  they  shared- in  this  mistake  at  Eome 
(see  p.  241),  we  can  understand  why  the  papal  legates  did 
not  protest  against  the  identification  of  the  Quinisexta  with 
the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

After  the  reading  of  a  series  of  further  patristic  proofs  in 
favour  of  the  veneration  of  images,  among  them  the  letters, 
already  mentioned,  of  Pope  Gregory  II.  and  of  the  Patriarch 
Germanus  of  Constantinople  to  John  of  Synnada,  etc.,1  and 
after  anathemas  had  been  pronounced  upon  the  enemies  of 
images,  Euthymius  of  Sardes  presented  the  synodal  Decree  of 
the  Faith.  The  Synod  there  calls  itself  holy  and  oecumenical, 
again  assembled  at  Nicsea  by  the  will  of  God  and  at  the 
command  of  the  two  rulers,  the  new  Helena  and  the  new 
Constantine,  then  declares  its  agreement  with  the  six  previous 
(Ecumenical  Synods,  then  adds  a  short  Symbolum,  and  passes 
on  to  its  special  theme  with  the  words :  "  Christ  has  delivered 
us  from  idolatry  by  His  incarnation,  His  death,  and  His  resur 
rection."  It  goes  on :  "  It  is  not  a  Synod,  it  is  not  an  Emperor, 
as  the  Jewish  sanhedrim  (the  false  Synod  of  A.D.  754)  main- 

1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  1-127  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  158-262. 
V.— 24 


370  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

tained,  which  has  freed  us  from  the  error  of  idolatry ;  but  it  is 
Christ  the  Lord  Himself  who  has  done  this.  To  Him,  therefore, 
belongs  the  glory  and  honour,  and  not  to  men.  We  are  taught 
by  the  Lord,  the  apostles,  and  the  prophets,  that  we  ought  to 
honour  and  praise  before  all  the  holy  God-bearer,  who  is  exalted 
above  all  heavenly  powers;  further,  the  holy  angels,  the  apostles, 
prophets,  and  martyrs,  the  holy  doctors,  and  all  saints,  that 
we  may  avail  ourselves  of  their  intercession,  which  can  make 
us  acceptable  to  God  if  we  walk  virtuously.  Moreover,  we 
venerate  also  the  image  of  the  sacred  and  life-giving  cross  and 
the  relics  of  the  saints,  and  accept  the  sacred  and  venerable 
images,  and  greet  and  embrace  them,  according  to  the  ancient 
tradition  of  the  holy  catholic  Church  of  God,  namely,  of  our 
holy  Fathers,  who  received  these  images,  and  ordered  them 
to  be  set  up  in  all  churches  everywhere.  These  are  the  repre 
sentations  of  our  Incarnate  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  then  of  our 
inviolate  Lady  and  quite  holy  God-bearer,  and  of  the  unem- 
bodied  angels,  who  have  appeared  to  the  righteous  in  human 
form  ;  also  the  pictures  of  the  holy  apostles,  prophets,  martyrs, 
etc.,  that  we  may  be  reminded  by  the  representation  of  the  orig 
inal,  and  may  be  led  to  a  certain  participation  in  his  holiness."1 
This  decree  was  subscribed  by  all  present,  even  the  priors 
of  monasteries  and  some  monks.  The  two  papal  legates  added 
to  their  subscription  the  remark,  that  they  received  all  who 
had  been  converted  from  the  impious  heresy  of  the  enemies 
of  images.2 

SEC.  352.    The  Fifth  Session. 

On  the  opening  of  the  fifth  session,  October  4,  Tarasius 
remarked  that  the  accusers  of  the  Christians  (see  p.  358)  had, 
in  their  destruction  of  images,  imitated  the  Jews,  Saracens, 
Samaritans,  Manichseans,  and  Phantasiasti  or  Theopaschites.3 
Further  patristic  passages  were  then  read,  and  even  those 
which  seemed  to  speak  against  the  veneration  of  images. 

1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  130  ;  Hardonin,  t.  iv.  p.  263. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  134-156  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  pp.  266-288. 

3  The  Phantasiasti  and  Theopaschites  are,  however,  not  identical,  but  two 
different  offshoots  from  Monophysitism.     See  vol.  iii.  pp.  458  and  459. 


THE   FIFTH   SESSION.  371 

(1)  The   series   was  opened  by   a   passage  from   the  second 
Catechesis  of  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  which  blames  the  removal 
of  the  cherubim  from  the  Jewish  temple  by  Nebuchadnezzar. 

(2)  A  letter  from  Simeon  Stylites  the  younger  (t  592)  to  the 
Emperor  Justin  IL,  asks  him  to  punish  the  Samaritans  because 
they  had  dishonoured  the  holy  images.     (3)  Two  dialogues, 
between   a   heathen   and  a    Christian,   and   between   a  Jew 
and    a    Christian,    defend    the    images.       (4)  Two    passages 
from  the  pseudo-epigraphic  book  TrepioSoi,  TMV  aylcov  aTrocr- 
To\(0v  speak    against   the    images,   and    were    used    by   the 
iconoclasts  at   their  Synod,  A.D.  754,  because  therein  John 
the  Evangelist  blames  a  disciple  who,  from  attachment  to 
him,  had  caused  his  portrait    to   be   painted.       The   Synod 
attributed  no  value  to  these  passages,  because  they  had  been 
taken  from  an  apocryphal  and  heretical  book.      (5)  As  the 
enemies  of  images   appealed    to    a   letter  from   the   Church 
historian  Eusebius  to  Constantia,  the  consort  of  Licinius,  in 
which  her  wish  to  possess  a  portrait  of  Christ  is  blamed,1  the 
Synod  now  shows  the  heterodoxy  of  Eusebius  from  his  own 
utterances,  and  from  one  of  Antipater  of  Bostra.    In  the  same 
way  (6)  Xenaias  and  Severus,  who  rejected  the  images,  were 
represented  as  heretics  (Monophysites,  see  vol.  iii.  pp.  456,459). 
(7)  Among  the  proofs  in  favour  of  the  images,  the  writings 
of  the  deacon  and  chartophylax    Constantine  of   Constanti 
nople  2  were  adduced ;  and  it  was  remarked  that  the  enemies 
of  the  images  had  burned  many  manuscripts,  in  the  patriarchal 
archives  at  Constantinople  and  elsewhere,  which  spoke  against 
them,  and  also  had  torn  out  some  leaves  from  a  writing  of 
Constantine  in  which    the  images    are   discussed.      On   the 
other  hand,  they  had  left  the  silver  boards  with  which  the 
book  was  bound,  and  these   boards  were  adorned  with   pic 
tures  of  saints.     A  passage  was  then  read  from  the  writing 
of  that  Constantine  on  the  martyrs,  in  which  he  shows  how 
the  martyrs  had,  in  opposition  to  the   heathen,  shown  the 
difference  between  the   Christian    veneration  of  images  and 

1  This  letter  of  Eusebius  is  in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  314  ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  406. 
Cf.  the  author's  article,  Christ usbildcr,  in  Wetzer  and  Welte,  and  in  his 
Beit-rage  zur  KircJiengesch.  Bd.  ii.  S.  257  f. 

-  Cf.  the  Dissert,  i.  of  Cave,  in  the  Appendix  to  his  Histor.  littcrar.  p.  169. 


372  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

idolatry,  and  had  based  the  former  upon  the  incarnation  of 
Christ.  Probably  this  was  the  passage  which  had  been  torn 
out  in  the  copy  at  Constantinople.  In  the  same  way,  it  was 
found,  with  several  other  manuscripts  adduced,  that  leaves 
had  been  cut  out  of  them.  As  the  originators  of  these  out 
rages,  they  designated  the  former  patriarchs,  Anastasius, 
Constantine,  and  Mcetas  of  Constantinople. 

The  presentation  and  reading  of  fifteen  further  passages 
from  the  Fathers,  which  were  in  readiness,  the  Synod  held 
to  be  unnecessary,  as  the  ancient  tradition  of  the  Church 
in  regard  to  the  images  was  clear  from  what  had  been  read. 
On  the  other  side,  the  monk  John,  representative  of  the 
East,  asked  leave  to  clear  up  the  real  origin  of  the  attack  on 
the  images,  and  related  that  story  of  the  Caliph  Jezid  and 
the  Jews  which  we  have  given  above  (p.  268).  It  was 
then  decreed  by  the  Synod  that  the  images  should  every 
where  be  restored,  and  at  them  prayers  should  be  offered. 
In  the  same  way,  they  approved  the  proposal  of  the  papal 
legates,  that  henceforth,  and  indeed  on  the  next  day,  a 
sacred  image  should  be  set  up  in  their  own  locality,  and 
that  the  writings  composed  against  the  images  should  be 
burnt.  The  session  closed  with  acclamations  and  anathemas 
against  the  enemies  of  images,  and  with  praises  of  the 
Emperors.1 

SEC.  353.    The  Sixth  Session. 

The  sixth  session  was  held,  according  to  the  Greek  text 
of  the  Acts  on  the  6th,  according  to  the  translation  of 
Anastasius  on  the  5th,  of  October,  and  immediately  on  its 
being  opened,  the  Secretary  Leontius  informed  them  that 
there  lay  to-day  before  them  the  0^09  (decree)  of  the  false 
Council  of  A.D.  754,  as  well  as  an  excellent  refutation  of 
it.  The  Synod  ordered  the  reading  of  both,  and  Bishop 
Gregory  of  Neo-Coesarea  was  required  to  read  the  words  of 
the  ope?,  and  the  deacons  John  and  Epiphanius  of  Con 
stantinople  to  read  the  much  more  comprehensive  document 
in  opposition  to  it.  The  composer  we  do  not  know.  It  is 
1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  157-202  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  286-323. 


THE    SEVENTH   SESSION.  373 

divided  (with  the  0/309,  which  is  included  in  it)  into  six  tomi, 
and  in  Mansi  comprehends  no  less  than  160  folio  pages, 
and  in  Hardouin,  120.1  The  principal  contents  of  the  opos 
have  already  been  given  in  connection  with  the  account  of 
the  iconoclastic  false  Synod  of  the  year  754  (see  p.  307). 
The  other  document  opposes  the  0/009  from  sentence  to  sen 
tence,  and  in  this  way  contains  much  that  is  certainly 
superfluous,  and  is  of  unnecessary  extent.  But  it  contains 
also  many  excellent  and  acute  observations,  which  thoroughly 
deserve  the  commendation  which  Leontius  gave  to  the  whole. 
The  assumptions  of  that  false  Synod  are  therein  powerfully 
met,  and  its  sophistries  exposed  (e.g.,  that  no  picture  of  Christ 
could  be  painted  without  falling  into  heresy).  That  the 
originators  of  the  0/009  were  often  harshly  treated,  is  not  to 
be  wondered  at,  and,  considering  the  dishonesty  with  which 
they  went  to  work,  perfectly  justifiable.  In  proof  that  the 
use  of  images  went  back  to  apostolic  times,  the  refutation 
appeals  (torn,  iv.)  to  the  statue  of  Christ  which  the  woman 
healed  by  Him  of  the  issue  of  blood  had  caused  to  be  set 
up  in  gratitude  (see  p.  367),  and  to  the  universal  tradition  of 
the  Fathers ;  and  then  shows  fully  that  the  iconoclasts  were 
mistaken  in  appealing  to  certain  passages  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  of  the  Fathers  (torn.  v.).  It  was  then  shown,  par 
ticularly,  that  the  patristic  passages  quoted  by  them  were 
partly  quite  spurious,  partly  garbled  by  them,  distorted,  and 
falsely  interpreted.  If  they  brought  forward  the  letter  of 
Eusebius  to  Constantine  (see  p.  371),  this  was  without  im 
portance,  because  the  writer  had  been  malce  famce  in  reference 
to  his  orthodoxy.  In  conclusion,  in  torn,  vi.,  the  particular 
sentence  of  the  false  Synod,  together  with  its  anathematisms, 
is  subjected  to  a  criticism  which  is  often  pungent. 

SEC.  354.   The  Seventh  Session. 

Of  special  importance  was  the  seventh  session,  on  October 
13,2  when  the  0/009  (decree)  of  our  Synod  was  read  by  Bishop 

1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  205-364  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  pp.  325-444. 

2  Only  by   an  oversight   does  Walch  maintain  (Bd.    x.    S.   440)  that   the 
Greek  text  of  the  minutes  of  this  session  has  been  lost. 


374  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

Theodore  of  Taurianum.1  Who  was  the  author  of  it  is 
unknown  ;  but  we  may  naturally  think  of  Tarasius,  and  at 
the  same  time  assume  that  the  solemn  publication  of  this 
decree  was  preceded  by  a  careful  exhortation  and  discussion 
from  the  same  hand,  although  the  minutes  are  silent  on  the 
subject.  The  Synod  declares  in  this  opo?  that  they  intended 
to  take  nothing  away  from  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  to 
add  nothing  to  it,  but  to  preserve  all  that  was  catholic  un 
altered,  and  follow  the  six  (Ecumenical  Councils.  The  Synod 
then  repeats  the  symbol  of  Nicoea  and  that  of  Constantinople 
without  filioque ; 2  pronounces  anathema  on  Arius,  Macedonius, 
and  their  adherents ;  then,  with  the  Synod  of  Ephesus,  con 
fesses  that  Mary  is  truly  the  God-bearer ;  believes,  with  the 
Synod  of  Chalcedon,  in  two  natures  in  Christ ;  anathematises, 
with  the  fifth  Council,  the  false  doctrines  of  Origen,  Evagrius, 
and  Didymus  (there  is  no  word  of  the  Three  Chapters) ;  with 
the  sixth  Synod,  which  had  condemned  Sergius,  Honorius, 
etc.,  preaches  two  wills  in  Christ,  and  professes  faithfully 
to  preserve  all  written  and  unwritten  traditions,  among  them 
also  the  tradition  in  respect  to  the  images.  It  concludes, 
therefore,  "that  as  the  figure  of  the  sacred  cross,  so  also 
sacred  figures — whether  of  colour  or  of  stone  or  of  any  other 
material — may  be  depicted  on  vessels,  on  clothes  and  walls, 
on  tables,  in  houses  and  on  roads,  namely,  the  figures  of 
Jesus  Christ,  of  our  immaculate  Lady,  of  the  venerable  angels, 
and  of  all  holy  men.  The  oftener  one  looked  on  these  repre 
sentations,  the  more  would  the  looker  be  stirred  to  the 

1  The  Acts  say  :  "  of  Taurianum  in  Sicily."     As  Taurianum  lay,  not  on  the 
island  of  Sicily,  but  in  Lower  Italy,  in  the  country  of  the  Bruttii,  the  expres 
sion  Sicily  must  have  been  then  also  taken  in  a  wider  sense. 

2  It  is  lacking  in  the  Greek  text ;  on  the  other  hand,  filioque  is  found  in 
the  Latin  version  of  Anastasius.     In  the  fifth  session  of  the  Council  of  Ferrara- 
Florence  (October  16,  1438),  the  Latins  showed  an  MS.  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  in  which  the  KO.L  £K  TOV  viov  was  read  also  in  the  Greek  text.     They 
wished  to  infer  from  this  that  our  Synod  had  already  made  this  addition. 
But  the  Greek  scholar,  Gemistius  Pletho,  remarked  that,  if  this  were  so,  then 
the  theologians  of  the  Latins,  e.g.  Thomas  of  Aquinum,  would  long  ago  have 
appealed  to  this  Synod,  and  not  have  spent  an  ocean  of  words  in  order  to  find 
a  foundation  for  the  filioque.     Cf.   the  author's   treatise   on    "Union  of  the 
Greek  Church,"  Art.  ii.  in  the  Tubingen  QuartalscJirift,   1847,  S.   211,  and 
Conciliengeschichte,  Bd.  vii.  S.  685. 


THE  SEVENTH  SESSION.  375 

remembrance  of  the  originals,  and  to  the  imitation  of  them, 
and  to  offer  his  greeting  and  his  reverence  to  them  (aaTracr^ov 
KOI  ri^7)Ti,Krjv  TrpoG/cvvrja-w),  not  the  actual  \arpeia  (rrjv 
a\T]6iv^v  Xarpeiav)  which  belonged  to  the  Godhead  alone, 
but  that  he  should  offer,  as  to  the  figure  of  the  sacred  cross, 
as  to  the  holy  Gospels  (books),  and  to  other  sacred  things, 
incense  and  lights  in  their  honour,  as  this  had  been  a  sacred 
custom  with  the  ancients ;  for  the  honour  which  is  shown  to 
the  figure  passes  over  to  the  original,  and  whoever  does  rever 
ence  (TTpoa-fcvvei)  to  an  image  does  reverence  to  the  person 
represented  by  it. 

"  Whoever  shall  teach  otherwise,  and  reject  that  which  is 
dedicated  to  the  Church,  whether  it  be  the  book  of  the 
Gospels,  or  the  figure  of  the  cross  or  any  other  figure,  or 
the  relics  of  a  martyr,  or  whoever  shall  imagine  anything 
for  the  destruction  of  the  tradition  of  the  Catholic  Church, 
or  shall  turn  the  sacred  vessels  or  the  venerable  monasteries 
to  a  profane  use,1  if  he  is  a  bishop  or  cleric,  shall  be  deposed ; 
if  a  monk  or  layman,  excommunicated." 2  This  decree  was 
subscribed  by  those  present,  and  all  exclaimed :  "  Thus  we 
believe :  this  is  the  doctrine  of  the  apostles.  Anathema  to  all 
who  do  not  adhere  to  it,  who  do  not  greet  the  images,  who 
call  them  idols,  and  for  this  reason  reproach  the  Christians 
with  idolatry.  Many  years  to  the  Emperor !  eternal  re 
membrance  to  the  new  Constantine  and  the  new  Helena ! 
God  preserve  their  government !  Anathema  to  all  heretics  ! 
Anathema  in  particular  to  Theodosius,  the  false  bishop  of 
Ephesus  (p.  267),  and  in  like  manner  to  Sisinnius,  surnamed 
Pastillas,  and  to  Basil  with  the  evil  surname  of  Tricaccabus  ! 3 
The  Holy  Trinity  has  rejected  their  doctrines.  Anathema  to 
Anastasius,  Constantine,  and  Nicetas,  who,  one  after  the  other, 

1  It  is  well  known  that  Copronymus  turned  monasteries  into  taverns. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  374  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  451  sqq. 

3  Basil  of  Ancyra  also  refers  to  him  in  the  Libellus  which  he  presented  to 
the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod.     According  to  this,   Basil  was  from  Pisidia 
(probably  a  bishop),  and  had  great  influence  with  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Copronymus.     Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1009  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  41.     Basil  Tricaccabus 
was  also  among  those  who  sent  Copronymus  to  the  Abbot  Stephen,  to  gain  him 
over  to  a  recognition  of  Conoiliabulum ;   Baronius,  ad  aim.  754,   26  ;   Pagi, 
ad  ann.  754,  17. 


376  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

occupied  the  throne  of  Constantinople  !  They  are  :  Arius  IL, 
Nestorius  IL,  and  Dioscurus  II.  Anathema  to  John  of  Nico- 
media  and  Constantine  of  Nacolia,  those  heresiarchs !  If 
anyone  defends  a  member  of  the  heresy  which  slanders  the 
Christians,  let  him  be  anathema !  If  anyone  does  not  con 
fess  that  Christ,  in  His  manhood,  has  a  circumscribed  form, 
let  him  be  anathema !  If  anyone  does  not  allow  the  ex 
planation  of  the  Gospels  by  figures,  let  him  be  anathema ! 
If  anyone  does  not  greet  these  things  which  are  made  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  and  the  saints,  let  him  be  anathema  ! 
If  anyone  rejects  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  written  or 
unwritten,  let  him  be  anathema !  Eternal  remembrance  to 
Germanus  (of  Constantinople),  to  John  (of  Damascus),  and 
to  George  (of  Cyprus,  see  p.  3 1 4),  these  heralds  of  the  truth  ! l 

At  the  same  time,  a  letter  addressed  by  Tarasius  and  the 
Synod  to  the  rulers,  Constantine  and  Irene,  reported  what 
had  taken  place,  explained  the  expression  Trpocr/cvvelv,  that 
the  Bible  and  the  Fathers  employed  this  word  to  signify  the 
reverence  accorded  to  men,  whilst  \arpeia  was  reserved  for 
God  alone.2  A  deputation  of  bishops,  hegumeni,  and  clerics 
was  also  appointed,  to  present  to  the  rulers  a  selection  from 
the  patristic  passages  in  proof  used  by  the  Synod.3 

A  second  letter  was  addressed  by  the  Synod  to  the 
priests  and  clerics  of  the  principal  and  other  churches  of 
Constantinople,  in  order  to  make  them  acquainted  with  the 
decrees  which  had  been  drawn  up.4 

SEC.  355.   The  Eighth  Session. 

The  rulers  then  gave  orders,  in  a  decree  addressed  to 
Tarasius,  that  he,  along  with  the  rest  of  the  bishops,  etc., 
should  now  come  to  Constantinople.  This  took  place.  The 
Empress  received  them  in  the  most  friendly  manner,  and 

1  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  398  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  470  sq.     These  very  three 
men  were  anathematised  by  the  Conciliabulum  of  A.D.  754. 

2  If,  nevertheless,  later  schoolmen  recognised  a  cultus  latriae,  to  the  image 
of  Christ  and  the  cross,  they  yet  referred  the  latria  to   the   Lord  Himself. 
Baronius,  ad  ann.  787,  42. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  399  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  471  sqq. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  407  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  478. 


CANONS  OF  THE  SEVENTH  (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.    377 

decided  that,  on  the  23rd  of  October,  a  new  session,  the  eighth 
and  last,  should  be  held  in  the  presence  of  the  two  rulers,  in 
the  palace  Magnaura.  After  Tarasius,  by  command  of  the 
Emperor,  had  opened  this  session  with  a  suitable  discourse, 
the  two  rulers  themselves  made  a  friendly  address  to  the 
Synod,  amid  the  liveliest  acclamations  from  the  members, 
ordered  the  opo?  which  had  been  drawn  up  at  the  previous 
session  to  be  read  again,  and  made  the  proposal,  "  that  the 
holy  and  (Ecumenical  Synod  should  declare  whether  this  opo? 
had  been  accepted  with  universal  assent."  All  the  members 
exclaimed :  "  Thus  we  believe,  thus  think  we  all :  we  have  all 
agreed  and  subscribed.  This  is  the  faith  of  the  apostles,  the 
faith  of  the  Fathers,  the  faith  of  the  orthodox.  .  .  . 
Anathema  to  those  who  do  not  adhere  to  this  faith  ! "  etc. 
(almost  the  very  same  words  as  after  the  reading  of  the  opo? 
at  the  seventh  session;  see  p.  374f.). 

At  the  prayer  of  the  Synod,  the  two  rulers  now  also 
subscribed  the  0/005,  Irene  first,  and  for  this  they  were  again 
greeted  with  the  most  friendly  acclamations.1  At  the  close 
the  rulers  caused  to  be  read  again  the  patristic  testimonies 
in  favour  of  the  veneration  of  images,  from  Chrysostom  and 
others,  which  had  been  used  at  the  fourth  session  ;  and,  after 
this  was  done,  all  the  bishops  and  the  uncommonly  numerous 
multitude  of  people  and  military  present  stood  up,  and 
expressed  with  acclamations  the  universal  assent,  and  gave 
thanks  to  God  for  what  had  been  done.2  Finally,  the  bishops 
were  allowed  to  return  to  their  homes,  with  rich  presents  from 
the  Emperor.3 

SEC.  356.   The  Canons  of  the  Seventh  (Ecumenical  Synod. 

Among  the  Acts  of  our  Synod  there  are  22  canons, 
which  Anastasius  places  in  the  preface  to  his  translation  of 

1  That  they  subscribed  several  copies  of  the  6'poj,  we  learn  from  the  fact 
that,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Anastasius  (in  Vita  Adriani  I.,  Mansi, 
t.  xii.  p.  741),  the  papal  legates  took  back  such  a  copy  with  them  to  Rome. 

Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  414  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  482  sqq.  In  the  translation 
of  Anastasius,  the  minutes  of  this  session,  with  the  exception  of  the  22 
canons,  are  wanting. 

3  Ignatius  in  Vita  Tarasii,  in  Baronius,  ad  ann.  787,  55. 


378  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

the  seventh  Council,  but  which  the  later  collection  of  Councils 
assigned  to  the  eighth.  The  latter  followed  the  tenor  of 
the  10th  canon,  in  which  Constantinople  (not  Nicsea)  is  men 
tioned  as  the  place  at  which  it  was  held ;  but  even  the 
apparent  contradiction  of  Anastasius  is  removed,  when  we 
consider  that  he  considers  the  solemn  closing  transaction  at 
Constantinople  as  one  actio  with  the  seventh  and  last  session 
at  Nicsea.  In  the  same  manner,  most  among  the  ancients, 
Greeks  and  Latins,  generally  reckoned  only  seven  sessions.1 
The  principal  contents  of  these  canons  are  as  follows  : 2  — 

1.  "  The  clergy  must  observe  the  holy  canons,  and  we 
recognise  as  such  those  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  six 
(Ecumenical  Councils;  further,  those  which  have  been  sent 
from  particular  Synods  for  publication  (eVSocrt?)  at  the  other 
Synods,  and  also  the  canons  of  our  holy  Fathers.  Whom 
soever  these  canons  anathematise,  we  also  anathematise ; 
whom  they  depose,  we  also  depose ;  whom  they  expel,  we 
also  expel ;  whom  they  punish,  we  visit  with  the  same 
punishment." 

Like  the  Greeks  generally,  so  our  Synod  also  recognised 
not  merely,  like  the  West,  fifty,  but  eighty  -  five  so  -  called 
apostolic  canons  (see  vol.  i.  ad  fin.).  Moreover,  they  speak 
of  the  canons  of  the  first  six  (Ecumenical  Councils,  whilst  it 
is  well  known  that  the  fifth  and  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synods 
published  no  canons.  But  also  here  our  Synod  acts  in 
accordance  with  the  custom  of  the  Greeks,  in  regarding  the 
102  canons  of  the  Quinisext  as  (Ecumenical,  and  especially 
in  ascribing  them  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod.  With 
regard  to  this,  Anastasius  remarked,  in  the  preface  to  his 
Latin  translation  of  the  synodal  Acts,  that  the  Council 
brought  forward  canons  of  the  apostles  and  of  the  six 
(Ecumenical  Synods  which  Kome  did  not  recognise,  but  the 
present  Pope  (John  vm.)  had  made  an  excellent  distinc 
tion  among  them.  We  have  already  given  this  above,  at  p.  240. 

1  Pagi,  ad  ann.  787,  6. 

2  Commentaries  on  these  canons  are  given  by  the  old  Greek  commentators, 
Balsamon,   Zonaras,  and  Aristenus  (reprinted  in  Beveridge's  Synodicon,  t.  i. 
p.  284  sqq.),  and  by  Van  Espen,  Commentar.  in  canones  et  decreta  juris,  etc., 
Colon.  1755,  p.  457  sqq. 


CANONS   OF  THE   SEVENTH    (ECUMENICAL  SYNOD.  379 

2.  "If  anyone  wishes   to   be  ordained  bishop,   he   must 
know  the  psalter  perfectly  (by  heart),  that  he  may  therefrom 
suitably  exhort  the  clergy  who  are  subject  to  him ;  and  the 
metropolitan    must    make    inquiry    as    to    whether    he    has 
striven  to  read    also   the    sacred   canons,   the   Holy  Gospel, 
further,  the  Apostolos  (the  apostolic  epistles),  and  the  whole 
of    the    sacred    Scriptures,    not    merely   cursorily,   but    also 
thoroughly,  and  whether  he  walks  according  to  the  divine 
commands,    and    so    teaches    the    people.     For     the    essence 
(ovala)  of  our  hierarchy  are  the  divinely-delivered  maxims, 
namely,  the  true  understanding  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  as 
the  great  Dioriysius  (the  Areopagite)  says." 

This  canon  is,  in  the  translation  of  Anastasius,  taken  into 
the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  6,  Dist.  xxxviii. 

3.  "  Every  election  of  a   bishop,  priest,  or  deacon,  pro 
ceeding  from  a  secular  prince,  is  invalid,  in  accordance  with 
the  ancient  rule  (Can.  Apostol.  n.  31),  and  a  bishop  must  only 
be  elected  by  bishop?,  according  to  can.  4  of  Nicaea." 

That  by  this  the  right  of  patronage  belonging  to  secular 
rulers,  and  the  many  indults  granted  to  Kings  to  designate 
bishops,  are  not  taken  away  or  forbidden,  but  that  the 
opinion  that  the  granting  of  ecclesiastical  positions  belongs  to 
princes  jure  DOMINATIONS  is  condemned,  is  shown  by  Van 
Espen,  I.e.  p.  460.  In  the  Corpus  JUT.  can.  our  canon  occurs 
as  c.  7,  Dist.  Ixiii. 

4.  "  No  bishop  may  demand  money  or  the  like  from  other 
bishops   or  clerics,  or  from  the  monks  subject   to  him.      If, 
however,  a  bishop  deprives  one  of  the  clergy  subject  to  him 
of  his   office,  or  shuts  up  his  church  from   covetousness  or 
from  any  passion,  so  that  divine  service  can  no  longer  be  held 
in  it,  he  shall  himself  be  liable  to  the  same  fate  (deposition), 
and   the    evil  which  he  wished  to    hold  over  another  shall 
fall  back  upon  his  own  head."     In  the  Corpus  jur.  can.  c.  64, 
Causa  xvi.  q.  1. 

5.  "  Those  who   boast  of  having  obtained  a  position  in 
the  Church  by  the  expenditure  of  money,  and  who  depreciate 
others  who  have  been  chosen  because  of  their  virtuous  life 
and  by  the  Holy  Ghost  without  money,  these  shall,  in  the 
first  place,  be  put  back  to  the  lowest  grade  of  their  order, 


380  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

and  if  then  also  they  still  persist  (in  their  pride),  they  shall 
be  punished  by  the  bishop.  But  if  anyone  has  given  money 
in  order  to  obtain  ordination,  the  30th  apostolic  canon  and 
the  2nd  canon  of  Chalcedon  apply  to  him  (vol.  i.  p.  469  ; 
vol.  iii.  p.  386).  He  and  his  ordainer  are  to  be  deposed  and 
excommunicated." 

Zonaras  and  Balsamon  in  earlier  times,  and  later, 
Christian  Lupus  and  Van  Espen,  remarked  that  the  second 
part  of  our  canon  treated  of  simony,  but  not  the  first.  This 
has  in  view  rather  those  who,  on  account  of  their  large 
expenditure  on  churches  and  the  poor,  have  been  raised 
(without  simony)  to  the  clerical  state  as  a  reward  and 
recognition  of  their  beneficence ;  and,  being  proud  of  this, 
now  depreciate  other  clergy  who  were  unable  or  unwilling  to 
make  such  foundations  and  the  like. 

6.  "  According    to    canon    8    of    the  sixth    (Ecumenical 
Council  (i.e.  the  Quinisext),  a  provincial  Synod  should  be  held 
every  year.     A  prince  who  hinders  this  is  excommunicated, 
a    metropolitan    who   is    negligent    in   it   is    subject  to    the 
canonical  punishments.      The  bishops  assembled  should  take 
care    that   the   life  -  giving   commands  of  God  are  followed. 
The  metropolitan,  however,  must  demand  nothing  from  the 
bishops.     If  he  does  so,  he  is  to  be  punished  fourfold." 

Anastasius  remarks  on  this,  that  this  ordinance  (whether 
the  whole  canon  or  only  its  last  passage  must  remain 
undecided)  was  not  accepted  by  the  Latins.  That  this  canon 
did  not  forbid  the  so-called  Synodicum,  which  the  metro 
politans  had  lawfully  to  receive  from  the  bishops,  and  the 
bishops  from  the  priests,  is  remarked  by  Van  Espen, 
I.e.  p.  464.  Gratian  received  our  canon  at  c.  7,  Dist.  xviii. 

7.  "As  every  sin  has  again  other  sins  as  its  consequence, 
so  the  heresies  of  the  slanderers  of  Christians  (iconoclasts) 
drew   other    impieties  after   them.     They  not   merely    took 
away  the  sacred  images,  but  also  abandoned  other  ecclesiastical 
customs,  which  must  now  be  renewed.     We  therefore  ordain 
that,  in  all  temples  which  were  consecrated  without  having 
relics,  these  must  be  placed  with  the  customary  prayers.     If, 
in  future,  a   bishop  consecrates  a  church  without  relics,  he 
shall  be  deposed." 


CANONS   OF  THE   SEVENTH   CECUMENICAL  SYNOD.          381 

8.  "  Jews  who  have  become  Christians  only  in  appearance, 
and  who  continue  secretly  to  observe  the  Sabbath  and  other 
Jewish  usages,  must  be  admitted  neither  to  communion  nor  to 
prayer,  nor  may  even  be  allowed  to  visit  the  churches.     Their 
children  are  not  to  le  baptized,  and  they  may  not  purchase  or 
possess  any  (Christian)  slave.      If,  however,  a  Jew  sincerely 
repents,  he  is  to  be  received  and  baptized,  and  in  like  manner 
his  children." 

The  Greek  commentators  Balsamon  and  Zonaras  under 
stood  the  words  //-^re  TO  us  TraiSas  avrwv  ffaTrri^etv  to  mean, 
"  these  seeming  Christians  may  not  baptize  their  own  children," 
because  they  only  seem  to  be  Christians.  But  parents  were 
never  allowed  to  baptize  their  own  children,  and  the  true 
sense  of  the  words  in  question  comes  out  clearly  from  the 
second  half  of  the  canon. 

9.  "  All  writings  against  the  venerable  images  are  to  be 
delivered  up  into  the  episcopal  residence  at  Constantinople, 
and  then  put  aside  (shut  up)  along  with  the  other  heretical 
books.      If  anyone  conceals  them,  he  must,  if  bishop,  priest, 
or  deacon,  be  deposed  ;  if  monk  or  layman,  anathematised." 

10.  "As  some  clerics,  despising  the  canonical  ordinance, 
leave  their  parish  (  =  diocese)  and  pass  over  into  other  dioceses, 
particularly    betake    themselves    to    powerful    lords    in    this 
metropolitan    city    preserved   by   God,   and    perform    divine 
service  in  their  oratories  (evKTrjplow),  henceforth  no  one  shall 
receive   them    into    his    house    or    his   church    without    the 
previous  knowledge  of  their  own  bishop  and  the  bishop  of 
Constantinople.     If  anyone    does  so,  and   persists  in  it,  he 
shall  be  deposed.     But  those  who  do  so  with  the  previous 
knowledge   of  those  bishops  (i.e.  become  domestic   chaplains 
with  persons  of  distinction),  may  not  at  the  same  time  under 
take  secular  business  (of  these  lords),  since  the  canons  forbid 
this.      If,  however,  one  has  undertaken  the  business  of  the 
so-called   Majores  (fjLe^orepoi,  majores  domus,  stewards  of  the 
estates  of  high  personages),  he  must  lay  this  down  or  be  de 
posed.     He  ought  rather  to  instruct  the  children  and   the 
servants,  and  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  them,  for  to  this 
end  he  has  received  the  sacred  ordination." 

On  the  office  of  the  /u-etforepot,  the  Greek  commentators 


382  HISTORY  OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

Zonaras  and  Balsamon  (I.e.  p.  301)  give  us  more  exact 
information.  We  have  given  the  substance  of  it  in  the 
parenthesis. 

11.  "In  accordance  with  the  ancient  ordinance  (c.  26   of 
Chalcedon,   see    vol.   iii.    p.    409),   an   ceconomus    should   be 
appointed   in    every    church.      If    a    metropolitan    does    not 
attend  to  this,  then  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople    is    to 
appoint  an  oeconomus  for  his   church.      Metropolitans   have 
the  same  right  in  regard  to  their  bishops.      This  prescription 
applies  to  monasteries." 

The  Synod  of  Chalcedon  required  the  appointment  of 
special  ceconomi  only  for  all  bishops'  churches;  but  our^Synod 
extended  this  prescription  also  to  monasteries.  Gratian 
received  this  canon  as  c.  3,  Causa  ix.  q.  3. 

12.  "  If  a  bishop  or  abbot  gives  away  anything  from  the 
property  of  the  bishopric  or  the  monastery  to  a  prince   or 
anyone  else,  this  is  invalid  according  to  the  39th  apostolic 
canon ;  even  if  it  is  done  under  the  pretext  that  the  property 
in  question  is  of  no  value.      In  such  a  case  the  property  is  to 
be  given  away,  not  to  secular  lords,  but  to  clerics  or  colonists. 
If,  however,  after  this  has  been  done,  the  secular  lord  buys 
the   property  in  question    of  the  cleric  or  colonist,  and  thus 
goes  cunningly  to  work,  then  such  a  purchase  is  invalid ;  and 
if  a  bishop  or  abbot  used  such  cunning  (i.e.  got  rid  of  church 
property  in  such  a  roundabout  way),  he  must  be  deposed." 
In  Corpus  JUT.  canon,  our  canon  is  c.  19,  Causa  xii.  q.  2. 

13.  "  In   the   unhappy  times  which   have  just  gone   by 
(iconoclastic),  many  ecclesiastical  buildings,  bishops'  residences, 
and  monasteries  have  been  transformed  into  profane  dwell 
ings,  and  have  been  acquired  by  private  persons.     If  now  the 
present  possessors  restore  them  voluntarily,  that  is  good  and 
right.      If  they  do  not,  if  clerics,  they  are  to  be  deposed ;  if 
monks  or  laymen,  excommunicated."     In  Gratian,  c.  5,  Causa 
xix.  q.  3. 

1 4.  "  We  remark   that  some  have  received  the  clerical 
tonsure  in  early  youth  without  any  order,  and  then  at  the 
Synaxis    (holy   communion)    they    read  in   the    ambos    [the 
Epistle  or  Gospel].     This  may  no  longer  be  done.     The  same 
is  the  case  with  the  monks.      On  his  own   monks   the  hegu- 


CANONS   OF   THE   SEVENTH   (ECUMENICAL   SYNOD.  383 

menus  (superior  of  the  monastery)  may  confer  the  order  of 
lector,  if  he  has  himself  been  ordained  to  the  office  of  hegu- 
menus  by  the  bishop  and  is  undoubtedly  a  priest.  So  also 
may  the  country  bishops,  in  accordance  with  ancient  custom, 
ordain  lectors  by  commission  from  the  bishop." 

Van  Espen  (I.e.  p.  469  sqq.  and  jus  canon,  t.  i.  pt.  i.  tit. 
31,  c.  6)  professes  to  show  (a)  that  at  that  time  there  was  no 
special  benediction  of  abbots  (different  from  their  ordination  as 
priests),  and  that  therefore  the  words,  "  if  he  (the  superior  of 
the  monastery)  himself  is  consecrated  by  the  bishop  to  the 
office  of  hegumenus,"  and  "  evidently  is  a  priest,"  mean  the 
same  ;  (b)  that  at  the  time  of  our  Synod  every  superior  of  a 
monastery,  a  prior  as  well  as  an  abbot,  had  the  power  of  con 
ferring  upon  the  monks  of  his  monastery  the  order  of  lector ; 
but  (c)  that  the  way  in  which  Anastasius  translated  the  canon 
(si  dumtaxat  ABBATI  manus  impositio  facta  noscatur  db  episcopo 

SECUNDUM     MOREM     PILEFICIENDORUM     ABBATUM),    and     the    re- 

ception  of  this  translation  into  the  Corpus  juris  canonici 
c.  1,  Dist.  Ixix.,  gave  occasion  to  concede  the  right  in  question, 
of  ordaining  lectors,  only  to  the  solemnly  consecrated  (and 
insulated)  abbots. 

15.  "Henceforth  no  cleric  may  be  appointed  to  more 
than  two  churches  at  the  same  time,  and  each  one  must 
remain  at  the  church  to  which  he  was  called.  In  order, 
however,  to  provide  for  the  necessities  of  life,  there  are  several 
kinds  of  employment,  and  the  cleric  may  (if  his  income  does 
not  suffice)  provide  by  means  of  these  the  necessary  sus 
tenance,  as  also  the  Apostle  Paul  did  (Acts  xx.  34  ;  1  Thess. 
iii.  9).  The  provision  mentioned  has  reference  to  this  capital 
city.  In  village  communities,  however,  on  account  of  the 
small  number  of  the  inhabitants,  allowance  may  be  made  "  (i.e., 
as  the  communities  are  here  too  small,  a  cleric  may  serve 
several  congregations). 

Gratian  received  this  canon  as  c.  1,  Causa  xxi.  q.  1,  but 
in  practice  the  so  often  lamented  and  forbidden  plurality  of 
benefices  did  not  give  way — a  matter  bewailed  by  the  com 
mentators  Zonaras  and  Balsamon  as  a  great  injury  to  the 
Greek  Church.  What  should  be  said  in  regard  to  the  Latin 
Church?  thinks  Van  Espen  (Commentar.,  etc.,  I.e.  p.  471). 


384  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

16.  "The  bishops  and  clergy  may  not  adorn  themselves 
with  showy  apparel.      If  they  do  so,  they  are  to  be  punished. 
The  like  applies  to  those  who  anoint   them.     As,  however, 
the  accusers  of  the  Christians  (iconoclasts)  not  merely  rejected 
the  sacred  images,  but  also  persecuted  with  hatred  those  who 
passed  ascetic  lives,  every  one  is  to  be  punished  who  mocks 
men  who  are   poorly   and  reverently    clad,    for    in   ancient 
times     every    cleric    wore    a    poor     and    reverent    garment, 
and  no  one  made  use  of  gay  silken  apparel  or  of  a  coloured 
decoration  at  the  border  of  his   mantle."      In  Gratian,  c.  1, 
xxi.  q.  4. 

17.  "  As  some  monks  leave  their  monastery,  and,  in  order 
to   rule   themselves,  begin   to    build   houses  of  prayer  (small 
monasteries)  without  having  the  means  necessary  for  com 
pleting  them,  the  bishops  should  in  future  forbid  this.      But 
whoever  has  sufficient  property  must  complete  what  he  has 
begun.     The  same  holds  of  laity  and  clergy." 

18.  "  No  women  are  allowed  to  dwell  in  bishops'  houses 
or  monasteries.      Every  bishop  or  hegumenus  (superior  of  a 
monastery)  who  has  in  his  dwelling  a  female  slave  or  freed- 
woman  for  service,  is  to  be  blamed,  and  if  he  does  not  send 
her   away,  he   is   to   be  deposed.      If,  however,  women   find 
themselves  on    the    estates  of  a  bishopric  or  monastery,  so 
long  as   the  bishop   or   abbot   remains  on   the  estate,  these 
women    are    to    follow    no    business    there,    but    must    live 
elsewhere." 

19.  "Some   superiors  of  churches  and  monasteries,  men 
and  women,  allow  themselves  to  be  so  blinded  by  covetous- 
ness,  that  they  demand  money  from  those  who  are  in  the 
clerical  state,  or  who  wish  to  enter  a  monastery.      If  a  bishop 
or  hegumenus  or  cleric  has  done  this,  he  is  no  longer  to  com 
mit  the  same,  or,  in  accordance  with  canon  2  of  Chalcedon,  he 
will  be  deposed.     If  an  abbess  (hegumena)  does  it,  she  shall 
be  removed  from  her  convent  and  transferred  into  another 
as   a   subordinate.      So    with    the   hegumenus  who  is  not   a 
priest.      In  regard,  however,  to  that  which  parents  have  given 
to  the  monastery  with  their  children  as  dower,  or  that  which 
these  have  brought  of  their  own  property  with  the  declaration 
that  it  was    consecrated   to    God — this  must  remain  to  the 


CANONS   OF  THE   SEVENTH   OECUMENICAL   SYNOD.  385 

monastery,  whether  they  continue  there  or  go  out  again,  if  its 
superior  is  free  from  fault "  (in  regard  to  the  departure  of  the 
person  in  question). 

20.  "  Double  monasteries  are  henceforth  forbidden.  If  a 
whole  family  wishes  to  renounce  the  world  together,  the  men 
must  go  into  convents  for  men,  the  female  members  of  the 
family  into  convents  for  women.  The  double  monasteries 
already  existing  may  continue,  according  to  the  rule  of  S. 
Basil,  but  must,  in  accordance  with  his  prescription,  observe 
the  following  ordinance :  Monks  and  nuns  (povdcrTpiai)  may 
not  reside  in  one  building,  for  living  together  gives  occasion 
for  incontinence.  No  monk  may  enter  the  women's  quarter, 
and  no  nun  converse  apart  with  a  monk.  No  monk  may 
sleep  in  the  women's  quarter  (which  frequently  happened,  in 
order  to  provide  for  the  night  or  early  morning  service), 
or  eat  apart  with  a  nun.  And  if  food  is  brought  from 
the  men's  quarter  to  the  canonesses  (TT/JO?  ra?  KCLVOVLKCLS), 
the  hegumena,  along  with  an  aged  nun,  must  receive  it 
outside  the  gate.  If,  however,  a  monk  wishes  to  see  a 
female  relative  (in  the  monastery),  he  must  converse  with 
her  in  presence  of  the  hegumena,  and  in  few  words,  and 
speedily  depart."  In  Gratian,  c.  21,  Causa  xviii.  q.  2. 

21.  "No  monk  and  no  nun  may  leave  their  own  convent 
in  order  to  go  over  to  another." 

22.  "In  the  case  of  the  laity,  it  is  allowed  that  both 
sexes    may  eat    together,    only    they    must  give  thanks  to 
the   Giver    of  all   food,   and  refrain   from  all   mimicry   and 
satanic  songs,  etc.     If  they  do  not,  they  must  amend,  or  the 
canons  of  the  ancients  will  apply  to  them.     Those,  however, 
who  live  peacefully  and  alone,  and  have  praised  God  that 
they  bear  the  lonely  yoke  (of  monasticism),  and  sit  and  are 
silent ;  those  also  who  have  chosen  the  spiritual  life,  may  by 
no  means  eat  apart  with  a  woman,  but  only  in  the  presence 
of  several  God-fearing  men  and  women.     This  must  hold  also 
with  relations.     If,  however,  a  monk  or  cleric,  on  a  journey, 
does  not  carry  food  with  him,  and  from  necessity  wishes  to 
enter  a   public  hostelry  or  a  private  house,  he  may  do  so, 
since  need  compels." 

v. — 25 


386  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 


SEC.  357.   The  rest  of  the  Synodal  Acts. 

After  these  canons  the  synodal  Acts  contain  another 
panegyric  pronounced  by  the  Sicilian  deacon  Epiphanius  (re 
presentative  of  Archbishop  Thomas  of  Sardinia),  of  which  the 
Latin  translation  of  Anastasius  was  given  in  the  older  collec 
tion  of  canons,  whilst  the  Greek  text  was  first  given  by  Mansi 
from  a  manuscript  in  the  library  of  S.  Mark  at  Venice.1 
This  wordy  intercourse  is  without  further  significance  for  the 
history  of  the  Synod,  and  its  chief  contents  consist  first  in 
the  disavowal  of  the  reproach  of  idolatry,  since  Christ  had 
appeared  on  earth  in  human  form  in  order  to  free  mankind 
from  idolatry.  The  Church  had  ever  preserved  the  doctrine 
of  Christ  unfalsified  (and  therefore  had  not  recently  fallen 
into  idolatry),  and,  in  fact,  none  of  the  follies  of  idolatry — of 
which  several  are  adduced  as  examples,  e.g.  the  mysteries 
of  Ceres,  the  cultus  of  Venus,  etc. — are  to  be  found  in 
the  Church ;  even  the  splendid  heathen  temples  had  been 
destroyed  by  the  Christian  Emperors.  To  this  was  added 
the  request,  above  all  things  to  thank  God  for  the  destruc 
tion  of  idolatry,  but  also  to  congratulate  the  present  holy 
Synod.  After  several  encomia  on  this,  the  Patriarch  Tarasius  is 
specially  commended  as  "  the  exarch  of  the  present  assembly," 
in  a  manner  as  though  he  were  the  head  of  the  Church. 
Further,  they  said,  the  city  of  Nicaea  should  rejoice,  as  it  had 
now  seen,  for  the  second  time,  an  (Ecumenical  Synod,  with 
350  bishops  and  innumerable  venerable  monks.  The  founda 
tion  of  the  faith,  which  had  been  shaken  by  Satan,  had  in  this 
Synod  again  been  confirmed.  Yes,  the  whole  Church  should 
rejoice  because  it  was  again  united.  She  had  no  longer  to 
fear  the  derision  of  her  enemies,  the  contempt  of  the  Jews 
and  Hagarenes  (Saracens),  and  no  longer  the  reproach  of  the 
heretics,  as  if  she  no  longer  held  fast  the  apostolic  doctrine, 
and  had  forsaken  the  one  God  on  account  of  the  honour  which 
she  paid  to  the  friends  of  God.  She  should  rejoice,  for  she 
would  no  longer  be  mistaken  for  the  temples  of  idols,  and  the 

1  Mansi,   t.   xiii.    pp.    442-458;    Hardouin,   t.   iv.    p.    501   sqq.,   only  in 
Latin. 


THE   REST   OF   THE   SYNODAL   ACTS.  387 

holy  images  of  the  God-bearer,  the  apostles,  prophets,  con 
fessors,  patriarchs,  and  other  holy  Fathers  and  martyrs  were 
suitable  for  her. 

We  possess,  further,  two  other  letters  referring  to  our 
Synod,  from  the  Patriarch  Tarasius  of  Constantinople  to  his 
"  most  holy  brother  and  fellow-servant,  the  Lord  Hadrian, 
Pope  of  Old  Eome."  In  the  former  he  refers  to  the  progress 
and  the  accomplishment  of  the  Synod,  and  says  in  it :  "  Your 
high-priestly,  fraternal  Holiness  has  made  haste,  in  union  with 
the  Emperors,  to  root  out  the  tares  by  the  sword  of  the 
Spirit,  and,  in  accordance  with  our  prayer,  sent  two  envoys  of 
the  same  name  with  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  apostles.  Our 
Emperors  have  received  them  in  a  friendly  manner,  and  sent 
them  to  us.  We  discussed  with  them  what  was  necessary, 
and  took  counsel  also  with  the  learned  and  venerable  priests 
John  and  Thomas,  who  came  from  the  East.  After  all  the 
bishops  of  this  diocese  (patriarchate)  had  assembled,  a  session 
of  the  Synod  began.  But  some  mischievous  persons  drove  us 
out,  and  we  had  to  remain  inactive  for  a  whole  year.  Here 
upon  the  rulers  summoned  all  the  bishops  to  Nicsea  in 
Bithynia,  and  I  also  travelled  thither  in  company  with  your 
representatives,  and  with  those  who  had  arrived  from  the 
East. 

"  After  we  had  sat  down,  we  took  Christ  for  our  head 
or  president  (fcetyaXrjv  eTroi^crd^eOa  XpKrrov),  for  the  Holy 
Gospel  was  laid  upon  the  sacred  throne.  First,  the  letters 
of  your  Holiness  were  read,  and  we  nourished  ourselves  in 
common  with  the  spiritual  food  which  Christ  prepared  for 
us  through  your  writings.  Then  the  letters  of  those  who 
came  from  the  East  were  also  read,  and  the  proof  from  the 
Fathers  for  the  true  doctrine  brought  forward.  Thereupon  we 
all  gave  our  assent  to  the  confession  of  the  true  faith,  which 
you  had  sent  to  me,  and  through  me  to  the  rulers.  The 
heresiarchs  and  their  adherents  were  deposed ;  those  of  them 
who  were  present,  however,  acknowledged  in  writing  the 
right  faith.  The  Church  did  not  remain  divided.  On  the 
contrary,  the  new  heretics,  the  slanderers  of  the  Christians  or 
enemies  of  the  images,  were,  like  the  old,  smitten  with  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  The  Emperors  ordered  the  venerable 


388  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

images  to  be  replaced  everywhere,  both  in  the  churches  and 
in  their  palaces." l 

In  his  second  letter  to  the  Pope,  Tarasius  explains  how 
wrong  it  is  to  buy  or  to  sell  ordination  for  money,  and  gives 
the  assurance  that,  in  his  diocese,  he  never  ceases  to  remind 
them  of  this,  and  that  he  is  himself  entirely  free  from  the 
sin  of  simony.  He  then  collects  several  biblical  and  patristic 
passages  against  simony,  and  finally  prays  the  Pope  that  he 
will  be  pleased  to  raise  his  voice  in  this  direction  and  against 
all  simony,  "  for  we  follow  the  words  of  thy  mouth."  2 

Further  light  on  this  point,  and  on  the  reason  for  this 
letter,  we  receive  through  another  letter  of  Tarasius  to  the 
priest  and  hegumenus  John,  and  through  his  famous  contem 
porary,  Theodore  Studites.  After  the  conclusion  of  the 
Synod  of  Nicaea,  many  monks  complained  that  the  majority 
of  the  (Greek)  bishops  had  purchased  the  sacred  office  for 
money.  This  complaint  was  naturally  brought  to  Tarasius, 
and  his  action  against  the  simonists  became  an  object  of 
violent  controversy.  A  part  of  the  monks,  particularly  Sabas 
and  also  Theodore  Studites,  accused  the  patriarch  of  having 
imposed  upon  the  simonists  penance  for  only  one  year,  and, 
in  opposition  to  the  laws  of  the  Church,  had  promised  that, 
after  the  expiration  of  this  penance,  he  would  reinstate  them 
in  their  offices.3  Tarasius  rebutted  this  accusation,  and,  in  the 
letter  referred  to,  to  the  priest  and  monk  John,  he  declares 
that  in  this  matter  he  has  a  perfectly  good  conscience,  and  is 
conscious  of  no  simony,  nor  of  tolerating  any  simonist  in 
office.  He  certainly  granted  them  penance,  and  then  after 
wards  received  them  back  into  the  Church,  as  he  did  with  all 
penitent  sinners,  for  he  rejected  the  severity  of  Novatian  ; 

1  Mansi,  Lc.  p.  458  ?qq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  507  sqq. 

2  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  461  sqq.;  Hardouin,  Lc.  p.  511  sqq.     From  this  concluding 
sentence  alone  it  is  clear  that  Tarasius  could  not  possibly  have  brought  the 
accusation  of  simony  against  the  Pope  himself,  as  Baronius  (ad  ann.  787,  60, 
61)  inferred  in  consequence  of  an  inaccurate  translation.     In  the  Greek  text 
Tarasius  thus  addressed  the  Pope:  i)  ofiv  d5eX0t/c7j  vfj.u>v  apx^poirpeir^  ayio<rvi>rj 
£i>d£(T[ji,<j)S  /ecu  Kara  6eov  /SovXyaiv  TrpvTavevovaa  TTJV  ^pap^LK^v  aytcrrelav,  diajSorjTov 
£%ei  rrfv   56£av.     In   the   translation  of  Baronius  we  read:  "Fraternitas  ergo 
vestra  et  sacerdotalis  sanctitas,  quae  non  jure  nee  ex  Dei  voluntate  pontificale 
munus  administrat,  magna  laborat  infamia. " 

3  Baronius,  ad  ann.  787,  58. 


THE   REST   OF  THE   SYNODAL  ACTS.  389 

but  they  were  no  longer  allowed  to  take  charge  of  clerical 
offices.  As,  however,  he  had  been  slandered  in  this  matter, 
he  had  submitted  to  the  highly  venerated  priest  and 
hegumenus  John,  whom  he  honoured  as  a  father,  his  principal 
reasons  for  his  conduct,  with  the  request  that  he  would  make 
the  other  monks  and  ascetics  acquainted  with  them,  and  to 
pray  for  him  that  he  might  be  delivered  from  the  evils  which 
assailed  him  from  all  sides.1 

To  the  same  time  probably  belongs  his  letter  to  the  Pope, 
for  it  must  have  been  of  importance  to  him,  in  connection 
with  the  slanders,  to  explain  his  true  view  to  the  holy  see. 
That  he  had  sent  a  letter  to  Eome  on  this  subject,  his 
opponents  also  heard ;  they  thought,  however,  and  even 
Theodore  Studites  thought,  that  he  had  endeavoured  to  gain 
the  Pope  for  his  alleged  lax  practice  in  regard  to  the  simonists, 
and  had  been  rebuffed.  The  assertion  of  Tarasius,  that  he 
had  never  granted  to  the  simonists  reinstatement,  they 
declared  to  be  an  untrue  statement  devised  in  his  difficulty, 
and  the  report  went  abroad  that,  in  the  course  of  a  year, 
Tarasius  had,  at  the  command  of  the  Emperors,  offered  the 
sacrifice  in  common  with  the  simonists,  i.e.  had  again  recog 
nised  them  as  clergy.  Upon  this  Sabas  and  others  completely 
separated  themselves  from  Church  communion  with  Tarasius ; 
but  Theodore  Studites  did  not  go  so  far,  and  acknowledged 
subsequently  that  the  alleged  weakness  of  the  patriarch  was 
in  noways  proved,  and  that  Tarasius,  as  he  heard,  had  not  in 
fact  restored  the  simonists.2 

The  close  of  the  collection  of  Acts  of  Mcaea  is  formed  by 
an  explanation,  proceeding  from  an  anonymous  hand  to  the 
Emperor,  as  to  how  the  passages  of  Scripture  which  seem  to 
oppose  the  veneration  of  images  must  be  understood.3  One 
other  document  is  given  by  Montfaucon  from  the  Coeslinian 
Library  with  the  title :  "  Letter  of  the  holy,  great,  and 
(Ecumenical  Synod  at  Nicaea  to  the  Church  at  Alexandria."  4 
But  even  Montfaucon  remarked  that  only  the  first  half  could 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  472  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  519  sqq. 

2  Baronius,  ad  ami.  787,  58,  59. 

3  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  480  sqq.;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  526  sqq. 

4  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  810  sqq. 


390  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

be  Nicene,  and  this  is  less  a  letter  than  a  discourse  on  a 
Church  festival,  containing  a  commendatory  exhortation  for 
the  restoration  of  the  images.  The  second  half,  however, 
which  contains  laudations  of  the  friends  of  the  images  and 
anathemas  against  their  enemies,  is  evidently  of  the  eleventh 
century,  as  is  shown  by  the  names  brought  forward  in  it  of 
patriarchs  (e.g.  Ignatius,  Photius)  and  Emperors  (particularly 
the  Empress  Zoe).  This  second  half  begins  with  CTTL  TOVTOI? 
in  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  816. 

The  copious  letter  of  Pope  Hadrian  I.  to  Charles  the 
Great  is  usually  appended  to  the  Nicene  synodal  Acts ;  and  in 
it  the  Pope  defended  our  Council  against  the  so-called  Libri 
Carolini}  Of  this,  however,  we  can  best  speak  when  we 
have  considered  the  part  taken  by  the  West  in  the  contro 
versy  about  the  images. 

The  Greek  text  of  the  Nicene  synodal  Acts  was  taken 
from  two  MSS.,  first  into  the  Eoman  collection  of  Councils, 
and  then  into  all  the  others.  One  of  these  MSS.  must  be  the 
original  which  the  papal  envoys  brought  back  to  Eome  from 
Nicrea.2  Pope  Hadrian  i.  had  a  Latin  translation  made  im 
mediately  of  these  Acts,  fragments  of  which  were  copied  into 
the  Caroline  books.  This  translation,  however,  is  so  defective, 
in  the  way  of  omission  and  mistranslation,  that  the  learned 
Eoman  librarian  Anastasius,  in  the  ninth  century,  says :  No 
body  could  read  it,  and  he  had  therefore  prepared  a  new 
translation.3  This  is  now  placed  alongside  the  Greek  text  in 
the  collections  of  Councils.  It  lacks,  however,  the  minutes 
of  the  eighth  session,  except  the  canons.  A  third  translation 
was  made  by  Gisbert  Longolius  from  a  Greek  MS.  which 
came  into  his  hands.  He  published  it  at  Cologne  in  the 
year  1540.  This  is  also  found  in  the  collections,  and  has  the 
same  defect  in  regard  to  the  eighth  session  as  the  version  of 
Anastasius.  Consequently,  in  the  Greek  text  of  the  eighth 
session,  a  Latin  translation  by  Binius  is  added  from  the 
beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century. 

1  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  759  sqq. ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  774  sqq. 

2  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  421. 

3  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  981 ;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  19. 


SKETCH  OF  THE  OCCURRENCES  IN  THE  EAST.     391 

SEC.  358.   Sketch  of  the  Occurrences  in  the  East  until  the 
beginning  of  the  Reign  of  Leo  the  Armenian. 

The  energetic  character  of  the  Empress  Irene,  in  con 
nection  with  the  pliableness  of  the  Byzantine  clergy,  leaves 
us  no  reason  for  doubting  that,  so  long  as  she  remained  in 
possession  of  power,  that  is,  until  the  year  802,  the  decrees 
of  the  seventh  (Ecumenical  Council  of  Nicaea  were  retained 
in  full  force,  even  although  no  particular  information  as  to 
their  enforcement  has  come  to  us.  It  appears  as  if  Theophanes 
and  all  his  contemporaries,  amid  the  frightful  occurrences 
within  the  imperial  family  itself,  had  forgotten  to  give  any 
account  of  many  other  things. 

A  few  months  after  the  end  of  the  Nicene  Synod,  Irene 
constrained  her  son,  the  Emperor  Constantine,  to  break  the 
engagement  which,  through  her  own  influence  (p.  343),  he 
had  entered  into  with  (Notrude)  the  daughter  of  Charles  the 
Great,  and  against  his  will  to  marry  Mary,  an  Armenian, 
whom  she  had  selected  for  him.  Why  she  did  so  is  not 
known ;  but  this  we  know,  that  her  quarrel  both  with  her 
own  son  and  with  the  great  King  of  the  Franks  dated  from 
that  time.1  Wicked  people,  says  Theophanes  (I.e.  p.  719), 
failed  not  to  widen  the  division  between  mother  and  son,  so 
that  she  excluded  him  completely  from  all  part  in  the 
government,  whilst  the  eunuch  Stauracius,  patrician  and 
logothetes,  had  all  power  in  his  hands.  Enraged  at  this, 
Constantine,  with  some  of  his  relations,  formed  the  plan  of 
imprisoning  his  mother  and  banishing  her  to  Sicily ;  but 
Stauracius  discovered  the  plot,  and  Irene,  informed  and 
urged  on  by  him,  imposed  heavy  punishments  on  the  con 
spirators,  so  that  she  had  her  own  son,  the  eighteen-year-old 
Emperor  (born  January  14,  771),  flogged  arid  imprisoned; 
and  even  made  the  army  swear  never  to  recognise  another 
regent  whilst  she  lived.  From  this  time  in  all  decrees  she 
placed  her  own  name  before  that  of  the  Emperor.2 

But  shortly  the  troops  of  the  different  themas  3  rose  in 

1  Theoph.  Chronogr.,  ed.  Bonn,  t.  i.  p.  718.  2  Theoph.  I.e.  p.  720  sq. 

3  The  Greek  kingdom  was  divided  into  29  themas  (military  lieutenancies), 
— 12  in  Europe,  17  in  Asia. 


392  HISTORY   OF   THE   COUNCILS. 

favour  of  the  son,  and  in  October,  790,  proclaimed  him  sole 
regent.  Irene  was  now  forced  to  set  him  free,  and  to  see 
Stauracius  and  others  of  her  confidants  sent,  with  shorn 
heads,  into  banishment.  At  the  same  time  she  was  herself 
deprived  of  all  power,  and  the  palace  of  Eleutheria  assigned 
to  her  as  a  residence.1  Yet  on  the  15th  of  January,  792,  the 
Emperor  declared  his  mother  again  co-regent,  at  her  request 
and  that  of  others,  so  that  her  name  was  placed  upon  all 
documents  along  with  and  after  his  own.  Soon  afterwards 
a  very  unsuccessful  expedition  against  the  Bulgarians  gave 
occasion  for  an  insurrection  in  a  portion  of  the  army,  who 
proclaimed  Nicephorus,  one  of  the  two  uncles  of  Constantine, 
Emperor ;  but  the  rising  was  suppressed,  and,  at  the  advice  of 
his  mother  and  of  Stauracius  (again  restored  to  favour),  the 
Emperor  took  vengeance  on  his  two  uncles,  Nicephorus  and 
Christopher,  and  on  all  their  friends.  The  first  were  blinded, 
the  others  had  their  tongues  cut  out.  A  rising  which,  on 
this  account,  broke  out  in  Armenia,  A.D.  793,  was  suppressed.2 
At  the  beginning  of  the  year  795  the  Emperor  Con 
stantine  put  away  his  Armenian  wife,  and  compelled  her  to 
enter  a  convent  as  a  nun.  Theophanes  says  (p.  727)  that  he 
had  been  tired  of  her,  and  that  Irene  had  advised  him  to  put 
her  away  and  to  marry  another,  foreseeing  that  this  would 
make  him  to  be  greatly  hated,  and  would  facilitate  her 
recovery  of  power.  He  married,  in  August  of  the  same  year, 
Theodota,  who  had  been  previously  a  lady  of  the  Court. 
Cedrenus  adds :  When  the  Patriarch  Tarasius  tried  to  oppose 
this  uncanonical  marriage,  the  Emperor  threatened  to  set  up 
again  the  idol-temples.  What  he  meant  by  this  is  doubtful. 
Walch  supposes,  as  the  iconoclasts  had  nicknamed  all  the 
sacred  images,  idols,  so  the  orthodox  had  in  like  manner,  in 
return,  called  the  temples  empty  of  images  idol-temples,  and 
that  the  Emperor  had  thus  threatened  the  destruction  of  the 
images.3  It  is  certain  that  Tarasius  shortly  gave  in,  and  that 
the  celebrated  Abbot  Plato  and  other  monks,  for  this  reason, 
renounced  Church  communion  with  him,  on  which  account 
they  were  punished  with  imprisonment  by  the  Emperor.4 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  723  sq.  2  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  724  sq. 

3  Walch,  Ketzerhist.  Bd.  x.  S.  544.  4  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  729. 


SKETCH  OF  THE  OCCURRENCES  IN  THE  EAST.     393 

Not  long  afterwards,  Irene  got  up  a  new  conspiracy 
against  her  son.  It  was  intended  to  seize  him  at  a  horse 
race,  but  he  escaped  on  a  ship,  and  the  people  took  his  side. 
Irene  thought  herself  already  lost,  when  the  Emperor  was, 
by  the  false  friends  who  were  round  him,  given  up  to  his 
mother,  and  she  had  his  eyes  put  out,  of  which  he  soon  after 
wards  died.1  From  this  time  onwards  Irene  was  again  in 
sole  possession  of  power,  and  to  this  time  belongs  the  plan  of 
Charles  the  Great  to  marry  her  and  thus  to  unite  the  two 
parts  of  the  Empire.  Irene,  according  to  Theophanes  (p. 
737),  would  have  consented,  had  not  ^Etius,  who  after  the 
death  of  Stauracius  (799)  possessed  the  greatest  influence, 
dissuaded  her,  with  the  view,  after  her  childless  death,  of 
raising  his  own  brother  Leo  to  the  throne. 

In  the  following  year,  802,  by  the  rebellion  of  the  patrician 
and  logothetes  Nicephorus,  Irene  was  dethroned,  deprived 
of  her  treasures,  and  imprisoned  on  the  island  of  Lesbos, 
where  she  died,  A.D.  803.2  No  change  in  ecclesiastical  affairs 
took  place  in  consequence,  for  the  new  Emperor,  the  usurper 
Nicephorus,  was  also  friend  of  the  images  (although  he  did 
not  persecute  the  enemies  of  images),  and  of  the  same 
opinions  was  the  patriarch  whom  he  raised  to  the  throne  in  the 
year  806,  after  the  death  of  Tarasius,  who,  like  the  Emperor 
himself,  bore  the  name  of  Nicephorus.  The  controversy 
respecting  images  was  at  rest,  and  also  under  the  succeeding 
Emperor  Michael  Eangabe  (811-813,  son-in-law  of  his  pre 
decessor)  the  enemies  of  the  images  only  once  ventured  to  rise. 
The  blinded  sons  of  Constantine  Copronymus  furnished  a  lever 
for  an  insurrection,  and  at  the  same  time  they  diffused  the 
story  that  Constantine  Copronymus  had  risen  from  his  grave 
in  order  to  assist  the  falling  State.  The  attempt  miscarried,  and 
some  enemies  of  images  were  severely  punished.  But  the  im 
perial  general  in  the  East,  Leo  the  Armenian,  availed  himself  of 
the  bad  luck  of  the  Emperor  in  a  battle  against  the  Bulgarians, 
in  order  to  make  him  hateful  and  contemptible  to  the  army. 
A  military  outbreak  now  gave  the  crown  to  Leo  the  Armenian. 
Michael  Eangabe  voluntarily  retired  into  a  monastery  in  the 
year  813,  and  the  times  of  iconoclasm  were  renewed. 

1  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  731  sq.         2  Theophanes,  I.e.  p.  745. 


POSTSCRIPT  ON  THE  ICONOCLASTIC 
CONTROVERSY. 


IN  one  sense  the  second  Council  of  Mcsea  put  an  end  to 
the  controversy  respecting  the  veneration  of  images.  This 
Council  was  intended  to  be  (Ecumenical,  and  was  generally 
received  as  such ;  but  the  controversy  by  no  means  came  to 
an  end  with  the  promulgation  of  its  decrees,  and  it  seems 
proper  that  some  information  should  here  be  given  respecting 
the  subsequent  history  of  the  controversy,  and  that  something 
should  also  be  said  on  the  earlier  history  of  the  conflict 
beyond  what  Bishop  Hefele  has  given  in  this  volume. 

As  a  rule,  the  editor  has  abstained  from  criticising  or 
annotating  the  statements  of  this  history  further  than  by 
an  occasional  suggestion,  especially  as  the  author  is  almost 
always  scrupulously  accurate  in  his  statement  of  facts.  It 
can  hardly  be  said  to  be  otherwise  in  his  account  of  the 
battle  between  the  iconoclasts  and  the  iconolators ;  and  yet 
there  are  few,  outside  the  boundaries  of  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches,  wTho  will  read  this  portion  of  the  history  with 
complete  satisfaction,  or  who  will  not  feel  that  it  has  received 
a  certain  colouring  from  the  views  of  the  writer  which 
diminishes  its  value  as  mere  history.  On  this  point  it  may 
suffice  to  recommend  to  the  reader  the  article  on  "  Images," 
by  the  late  Mr.  Scudamore,  in  the  Dictionary  of  Christian 
Antiquities,  in  which  the  whole  subject  is  handled  with  equal 
objective  accuracy,  but  from  a  different  point  of  view. 

The  controversy  respecting  images  naturally  points  back 
to  the  Second  Commandment,  with  its  prohibition  of  the 
making  of  graven  images  or  other  likenesses  for  the  purpose 
of  worship.  The  question  has  been  raised  as  to  whether  the 

394 


POSTSCRIPT    ON    THE    ICONOCLASTIC    CONTROVERSY.        395 

commandment  did  not  prohibit  the  making  of  likenesses  for 
any  purpose  whatever.  But  the  later  Jewish  beliefs  on  this 
subject — that  all  painting  and  sculpture  of  every  kind  were 
forbidden — are  opposed  to  the  simple  facts  of  Hebrew  history 
and  institutions.  It  may  be  admitted,  Kalisch  remarks,  that 
the  prohibition  has  "  exercised  a  retarding  influence  upon  the 
progress  and  development  of  the  plastic  arts  among  the 
Hebrews ;  for  plastic  art,  in  its  beginnings,  generally  stands 
in  the  service  of  religion,  and  advances  by  the  stimulus  it 
affords.  But  it  is  an  incomprehensible  mistake,  if  it  is 
believed  that  the  plastic  arts  in  general,  sculpture  and 
painting,  are  forbidden  in  our  text.  .  .  .  Such  a  barbarous 
and  irrational  law  could  not  possibly  emanate  from  a 
legislator  who  commanded  and  erected  a  holy  tent  furnished 
with  all  the  adornments  of  art  and  beauty,  who  even  ordered 
two  cherubims  to  be  placed  in  the  Holy  of  Holy  (Ex. 
xxv.  18-20;  cf.  xxv.  34,  xxvi.  32;  Num.  xxi.  8,  9).  In 
the  first  temple,  as  well  as  in  the  second,  was  an  abundance 
of  plastic  works,  which  nobody  has  found  at  variance  with 
the  spirit  of  Mosaism.  We  mention,  further,  the  '  serpent 
of  brass '  which  Moses  erected  (Num.  xxi.  9) ;  the  golden 
figures  which  the  Philistines  offered  for  the  holy  tabernacle 
(1  Sam.  vi.  17).  .  .  .  A  limited  and  shortsighted  interpreta 
tion  of  the  letter  of  the  holy  text  has,  in  other  passages  also, 
led  to  the  most  perverse  and  almost  ridiculous  results.  For 
the  purpose  of  religious  worship,  no  images  were  to  be  made ; 
more  than  this  does  our  text  not  forbid  "  (Kalisch,  Comm.  on 
fixodus,  in  loc.  p.  347  ;  cf.  also  Speaker's  Commen.  in  loc. 
p.  331). 

In  later  times  the  Second  Commandment  was  understood 
by  the  Jews  as  forbidding  not  merely  the  worshipping  of 
images,  but  even  the  making  of  them  ;  and  this  feeling  was 
certainly  deepened  by  the  doings  of  Antiochus  Epiphanes, 
who  set  up  "  groves  and  chapels  of  idols "  in  the  cities  of 
Judah  (1  Mace.  i.  47).  Later  on,  in  the  days  of  Herod  the 
Great,  when  the  trophies  of  victory  which  he  displayed  were 
supposed  to  cover  the  effigy  of  a  man,  the  Jews  declared  that 
they  would  never  "  endure  images  of  men  in  the  city,  for  it 
was  not  their  country's  custom"  (Josephus,  Antiq.  xv.  8.  1,  2). 


396  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

And  Origen  (A.D.  230)  declares  of  the  Jews,  that  "there  was 
no  maker  of  images  among  their  citizens ;  neither  painter  nor 
sculptor  was  in  their  State"  (Contra  Gelsum.  iv.  31). 

It  is  quite  intelligible,  therefore,  that  there  should  be 
the  strongest  opposition  to  the  veneration  or  making  of  images 
or  likenesses  in  the  early  Church.  First,  there  were  the 
converts  from  Judaism,  who  brought  with  them  the  strongest 
repugnance  to  such  objects.  Next,  there  were  the  converts 
from  heathenism,  who  had  themselves  to  a  large  extent  been 
idolaters,  and  who  saw  the  danger,  to  themselves  and  others, 
of  a  relapse  into  their  previous  degrading  customs.  In  later 
times,  also,  there  were  the  Mahometans  among  them  and 
around  them,  who  cherished  a  fierce  hatred  against  all 
making  of  images  as  being  a  violation  of  the  law  of  the 
Prophet. 

Bishop  Hefele  has  given  a  fairly  complete  account  of  the 
origin  of  these  controversies  in  the  Church — of  the  introduc 
tion,  in  the  first  instance,  of  symbolical  representations  of 
sacred  things,  as  the  Lamb  and  the  Dove,  leading  to  such 
pictures  as  that  of  the  Good  Shepherd,  and  so  advancing  to 
representations  standing  for  our  Lord  Himself  and  His  saints. 
There  are  several  ways  of  viewing  these  things.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  could  hardly  be  denied  that  they  might  be,  and 
actually  were,  vehicles  for  the  instruction  of  the  ignorant ;  as 
in  later  times,  for  example,  Dr.  Doddridge,  when  a  child,  was 
taught  Scripture  history  by  his  mother  from  the  Dutch  tiles 
round  the  fireplace.  This  was  the  view  of  Gregory  i.,  when 
a  bishop  of  Marseilles  of  that  period  destroyed  images  which 
had  been  used  for  idolatrous  purposes.  "We  praise  you," 
said  Gregory,  "  for  being  zealous  lest  aught  made  by  the 
hand  should  be  worshipped ;  but  we  think  that  you  ought 
not  to  have  broken  the  said  images.  For  painting  is  used 
in  churches,  that  they  who  are  ignorant  of  letters  may  at 
least  read  on  the  walls  by  seeing  there  what  they  cannot 
read  in  books"  (Ep.  vii.  111). 

The  Pope  acted  on  the  well-known  principle,  "  Abusus 
non  tollit  usum " ;  on  the  other  hand,  the  iconoclasts  might 
have  quoted  the  example  of  Hezekiah,  who  broke  in  pieces 
the  serpent  of  brass,  although  it  had  been  fashioned  by 


POSTSCRIPT    ON   THE   ICONOCLASTIC   CONTROVERSY.        397 

divine  command,  because  it  had  been  used  to  foster  idolatry. 
Both  positions  are  quite  intelligible,  and  even  reasonable. 
And  if  zeal  for  a  spiritual  religion  should  pass  into  fanaticism, 
such  as  condemns  the  application  of  every  kind  of  art 
(painting,  sculpture,  music,  poetry)  in  the  service  of  religion, 
we  cannot  altogether  wonder,  although  there  comes  a  point 
when  we  must  disapprove  and  condemn,  in  the  interests  of 
civilisation  and  religion  alike.  If,  again,  there  should  come  a 
reaction  against  such  fanaticism,  and  the  defence  of  sacred  art 
should  lead  to  superstition,  we  might  also  be  prepared  for 
such  results.  These  principles  are  abundantly  illustrated  in 
the  iconoclastic  controversy ;  and  it  is  not  necessary  that  they 
should  be  here  further  discussed.  What  remains  for  us  is 
to  give  a  brief  sketch  of  the  events  connected  with  images 
which  followed  the  second  Council  of  Nicsea. — It  may  be 
here  noted,  in  passing,  that  the  "  images  "  to  which  reference 
is  so  often  made,  were  (almost  certainly)  not  sculptures,  but 
either  mosaics  or  what  is  known  in  the  Eastern  Church  as 
icons,  which  may  be  described  as  pictures  with  generally  a 
kind  of  gold  mount,  sometimes  adorned  with  jewels. 

As  we  see  in  the  history,  it  was  not  until  after  many 
controversies  that  the  second  Council  of  Mcsea  decided 
(A.D.  787)  in  favour  of  the  images;  but  this  was  far  from 
ending  the  dispute.  It  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  the 
Emperors  of  the  East  had  always  exercised  a  large  influence 
on  the  decisions  of  the  Councils  and  the  subsequent  reception 
of  their  decrees  by  the  Church.  Their  intervention  in  the 
iconoclastic  controversy  did  not  come  to  an  end  with  the 
Synod  of  Nicsea.  Some  subsequent  Emperors  were  favourable 
to  the  Council,  but  a  determined  opponent  was  found  in 
Leo  v.,  the  Armenian  (A.D.  813— 826),  whose  soldiers  destroyed 
images  in  all  directions.  Michael  IL,  who  succeeded  him, 
tolerated  the  worshipping  of  images  (820—829).  But  his 
son  Theophilus  (820—842)  not  only  did  his  utmost  to  root 
out  image  -  worship  during  his  lifetime,  but,  at  his  death, 
exacted  an  oath  from  his  widow,  Theodora,  that  she  would  not 
restore  the  icons  or  the  worship  of  them.  So  far  was 
Theodora  from  giving  effect  to  her  promise,  that  she  did  her 
utmost  to  bring  back  the  cultus  of  the  icons,  and  even 


398  HISTORY   OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

procured  the  holding  of  a  Council  at  Constantinople  in  the 
same  year  (842),  at  which  the  decrees  of  the  second  Council 
of  Nicsea  were  reaffirmed.  The  day  of  the  synodal  decision 
(February  19)  was  appointed  to  be  kept  as  a  festival. 

It  has  sometimes  been  said  that  from  this  time  all 
opposition  ceased ;  but  this  is  not  quite  exact,  since  we 
find  the  Patriarch  Photius  (c.  A.D.  860)  proposing  to  Pope 
Nicholas  that  another  Council  should  be  held  to  complete  the 
suppression  of  the  "  heresy  of  the  Iconomachi."  The  Council 
met  (861)  and  pronounced  the  deposition  of  Ignatius,  who 
had  been  supplanted  by  Photius,  but  there  is  no  record  of  its 
decision  in  respect  to  the  images.  In  869  another  Synod 
"  denounced  the  iconoclasts,  upheld  pictures  as  useful  in  the 
instruction  of  the  people,  and  declared  that  we  '  ought  to 
worship  them  with  the  same  honour  as  the  book  of  the  Holy 
Gospels.'  Here  the  history  of  the  struggle  closes  in  the 
East  "  (Diet.  Antiq.  s.v.  "  Images  "). 

Turning  to  the  Western  Church,  we  find  that,  on  the 
occasion  of  an  embassy  of  the  Emperor  Constantine  Coprony- 
mus  to  Pipin  the  Short,  a  Synod  was  held  (A.D.  767)  at 
Gentiliacum  (  =  Gentilly)  on  the  subject  of  the  images  ;  but 
we  have  no  record  of  the  proceedings  (cf,  sec.  341  in  this 
volume  of  the  History).  In  790,  Hadrian  i.  sent  to  Charles 
the  Great  the  Acts  of  the  second  Synod  of  Nicsea.  The 
Emperor,  who  did  not  appreciate  the  acceptance  by  the 
Western  Church  of  the  decrees  of  an  Oriental  Synod,  and, 
moreover,  disagreeing  with  the  conclusions  at  which  they  had 
arrived,  put  forth  a  manifesto,  written  in  his  name,  entitled 
Libri  Carolini,  directed  against  the  practices  sanctioned  by 
the  Council  and  the  Pope.  He  censured  the  proceedings  of 
the  Synod  in  strong  terms,  refuted  its  Acts,  denounced  every 
form  of  image  -  worship  as  idolatry,  without  allowing  the 
doings  of  the  iconoclasts, — taking,  in  fact,  the  line  adopted  by 
Gregory  the  Great,  that  images  were  useful  in  quickening 
devotion,  instructing  the  people,  and  providing  suitable 
decoration  for  holy  places.  At  the  same  time,  veneration  of 
saints,  relics,  and  the  cross  is  permitted. 

This  manifesto  was  sent  to  the  Pope,  and  was  answered 
by  him  without  producing  any  effect  on  the  Emperor. 


POSTSCRIPT   ON   THE   ICONOCLASTIC   CONTROVERSY.         399 

Soon  afterwards  (792),  by  means  of  Alcuin,  he  took  the 
opportunity  of  disseminating  his  views  in  Britain,  and  of 
procuring  the  presence  of  English  bishops  at  the  great  Synod 
which  he  convoked,  and  which  met  at  Frankfort,  A.I).  794— 
a  Synod  which  "  rejected  with  contempt,  and  unanimously 
condemned,  the  adoration  and  service "  which,  the  Greeks 
said,  should  be  rendered  to  images.  And  so  the  question 
remained  under  the  great  Emperor. 

At  a  Synod  held  in  Paris,  under  Lewis  the  Pious  (825), 
the  bishops,  referring  to  a  letter  from  Pope  Hadrian  i.  to 
Irene,  declared  that  the  Pope  "justly  reproved  those  who 
rashly  presumed  to  break  the  images  of  the  saints,  but  acted 
indiscreetly  in  commanding  to  give  them  superstitious 
worship."  Down  to  the  tenth  century  no  recognition  was 
given  in  the  Frankish  kingdom  to  the  second  Synod  of  Nicaea, 
and  official  opposition  to  image  -  worship  was  continued. 
Among  those  who  wrote  strongly  against  the  practice  may  be 
mentioned  Agobard  of  Lyons  (c.  840)  and  Claudius  of  Turin, 
soon  after  the  Council  of  Paris.  The  latter  was  answered 
by  Dungal,  a  monk  of  S.  Denys  of  Paris,  in  a  somewhat 
violent  fashion,  who  charged  Claudius  to  defend  himself  before 
the  Emperor.  The  latter  called  upon  Bishop  Jonas  of 
Orleans  to  reply,  but  his  answer  appeared  after  the  death  of 
Claudius.  It  would  appear  that  Agobard's  Liber  de  Picturis 
et  Imaginibus  was  the  last  clear  testimony  against  the  images. 
Hincmar,  archbishop  of  Reims  (A.D.  845),  wrote  a  treatise  to 
explain  "  in  what  manner  the  images  of  our  Lord  and  His 
saints  are  to  be  venerated,"  in  which  he  speaks  con 
temptuously  of  the  Greek  practice,  and  rejects  the  second 
Council  of  Nicsea.  Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  Jonas  of 
Orleans  most  nearly  expresses  the  result  at  which  the 
Western  Church  arrived,  in  his  De  Cultu  Imaginum,  where  he 
says  that  images  are  to  be  set  up  in  churches  solummodo  ad 
instrmndas  nescientium  mentes. 

To  this  conclusion  the  Latin  Church  has  held  fast, 
teaching  in  the  Tridentine  decrees  (Sessio  xxv.  De  invocations 
Sanctorum,  etc.),  that  images  are  to  be  used  for  the  instruction 
of  the  people,  and  for  inciting  to  the  imitation  of  the  saints, 
but  holding  that  a  certain  veneration  was  to  be  paid  to  the 


400  HISTORY    OF  THE   COUNCILS. 

images  (debitum  honorem  et  venerationem  impertiendam).  But 
this  is  to  be  rendered,  "  not  as  though  any  divine  power  was 
supposed  to  be  in  them,  on  account  of  which  they  were 
honoured,  or  as  though  anything  should  be  asked  of  them  or 
any  confidence  should  be  reposed  in  them,  .  .  .  but  because 
the  honour  which  is  shown  to  them  is  referred  to  the  originals 
which  are  represented  by  the  images, — so  that  we,  by  means  of 
the  images  which  we  kiss,  and  before  which  we  uncover  our 
heads  and  kneel,  worship  Christ  and  reverence  the  saints, 
who  are  represented  to  us  in  them."  The  Synod,  in  thus 
testifying,  appeals  to  the  decree  of  the  second  Nicene 
Council. — How  far  these  distinctions  are  valid  for  the  people 
at  large  we  need  not  here  inquire. 


APPENDIX. 


Corrections  and  additions  to  the  first  volume  of  the 
History  of  the  Councils,  taken  from  the  second  German 
edition. 

P.  2.  1.  8,  add  Mansi,  t.  ii.  p.  469.  1.  14,  add  Mansi, 
t.  ii.  p.  478  ;  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  268.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  922. 

P.  3.  1.  17,  after  A.D.  449,  add  the  Synod  of  Pisa, 
A.D.  1409  ;  of  Sinna,  1423,  etc.,  and  partly  at  the  Councils 
of  Constance  and  Basel. 

P.  5.  n.  I,  add  Mansi,  t.  xvii.  p.  310. 

P.  6.  1.  20,  after  distinguished,  add  or  oldest. 

P.  7.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  127.  n.  2,  add  Mansi, 
t.  xiii.  p.  884.  1.  10,  for  houses,  read  horses.  1.  17,  add 
Mansi,  t.  xxix.  p.  77. 

P.  8.  n.  4,  add  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  208. 

P.  9.  n.  3,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  661  ;  and  for  1417,  read 
1471. 

P.  10.  1.  6,  after  Baronius,  add,  ad  ann.  381,  n.  19 
and  20.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  551. 

P.  11.  n.  3,  add  Mansi, /.c.  p.  1288.    n.  4, /or  $10,  read  980. 

P.  13.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  546.  n.  4,  add  Mansi, 
t.  ix.  p.  59.  n.  5,  add  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  64.  n.  6,  add  Mansi, 
t.  iii.  p.  195. 

P.  14.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  457-488  ;  t.  ix.  p.  414. 
n.  3,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  209.  n.  4,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p. 
195  sq.  and  p.  713.  n.  5,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  683. 

P.  15.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  985.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t. 
xiii.  p.  808.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  20  sq.  1.  7  ab  im., 
delete  holy  Synod  of  Trent,  and  read  most  recent  Vatican 
Council,  A.D.  1869  ;  and  to  this  the  note:  Cf.  the  treatise  De 

v. — 26 


402  APPENDIX. 

jure  Rom.  pontificis,  concilia  cecumenica  convocandi  iisque  prac- 
sidandi,  in  Moy's  Archiv  fur  Kirchenrecht,  1857,  Bd.  ii. 
S.  555  ff.  and  675  ff. 

P.  16.  End  of  par.  3,  add  Of.  Lucius  Ferraris,  BiUiotli. 
canonica,  s.v.  Concilium,  art.  iii. 

P.  17.  n.  5,  add  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1207.  n.  6,  add  Mansi, 
t.  iv.  p.  1114;  t.  vi.  p.  551. 

P.  18.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  ii.  pp.  548,  693  sq.;  t.  iv. 
p.  1218.  n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  ix.  959.  At  the  end  of  par.  4, 
add :  Ferraris,  on  the  other  hand,  remarks :  Eodem  suffragii 
decisivi  jure  gaudent  etiam  episcopi  titulares,  et  ideo  etiam  ipsi 
sunt  de  jure  vocandi  ad  generalia  concilia.  Licet  enim  a  tyrannis 
infidelibus  sint  occupatce  ecclesice,  ad  quorum  titulum  sunt  ordinati 
et  consecrati  episcopi,  et  consequenter  in  actu  secundo  careant 
jurisdictione,  ex  quo  non  habeant  territorium  actuate  .  .  .  reti- 
nent  tamen  jurisdictionem  in  actu  primo  quoad  suas  titulares 
ecclesias,  quce  potest  dari,  quod  liber entur  a  tyrannide  infidelium, 
et  sic  etiam  in  actu  secundo  habeant  territorium,  in  suo  subditis, 
sic  omnes  alii  episcopi  jus  dicere  possint.  (Bibliotheca  canonica, 
etc.,  s.v.  Concilium,  art.  i.  n.  29.)  At  the  latest  Vatican 
Council  all  titular  bishops  (in  part,  infidel.)  were  summoned, 
and  there  were  1 1 7  of  them  present,  with  full  power  of  voting. 

P.  20.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  ii.  p.  5.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  ii.  p. 
476.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  iii.  p.  880.  n.  4,  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  998.  n.  6, 
Mansi,  t.  ii.  p.  476  sq.  n.  7,  Mansi,  t.  ii.  p.  5.  n.  8,  Mansi, 
t.  iii.  pp.  892  and  971.  n.  9,  Mansi,  Ic.  1002.  n.  10, 
Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1211  sq. ;  t.  vii.  p.  135  sqq.  n.  11,  Mansi, 
t.  xiv.  p.  629  sq.  n.  12,  Mansi  t.  vi.  p.  752. 

P.  21.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  934.  n.  2,  Mansi, 
t.  iii.  p.  568  sqq.;  t.  vi.  p.  935.  At  the  end  of  par.  9,  add : 
At  Trent  the  procurators  absentium  were  admitted  only  in  a 
very  limited  degree, — at  the  recent  Vatican  Council  not  at  all, 
not  even  ad  videndum  et  audiendum.  They  were  not  admitted 
into  the  Council  hall.  At  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  manage 
ment  was  as  follows :  As  Pope  Paul  in.  saw  that  very  many 
bishops  remained  away  without  reason,  and  sent  procurators, 
he  ordained  that  these  should  be  admitted  only  ad  excusandum. 
In  case,  however,  they  were  prelates  with  a  personal  right  of 
voting,  they  might  present  their  own  vote,  but  not  that  of 


APPENDIX.  403 

another  (X.  Kal.  Mail,  1545).  On  the  representation  of  the 
German  bishops,  that  they  were  unable  to  leave  their  dioceses 
on  account  of  the  Lutheran  heresy,  Paul  in.  allowed  for  them, 
as  an  exception,  from  December  5,  1545,  the  admission  of 
procurators  with  right  of  voting.  This  concession  was  taken 
back  by  Pius  iv.  on  August  26,  1562,  who  ordained  generally 
that,  in  the  general  congregations,  the  procurators  should  be 
admitted,  even  if  they  were  not  prelates,  but  that  they  should 
sit  behind  all  the  other  members,  and  not  speak  unless  they 
were  asked.  At  the  congregations  of  theologians,  however, 
they  were,  like  the  others,  to  have  a  Votum  consultativum. 
So  relates  the  general  secretary  of  the  Council  of  Trent, 
Bishop  Masarelli,  in  his  introduction  to  the  still  unprinted 
minutes  of  Trent.  Pallavicino  says  the  same.  n.  4,  add 
Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1130  sq.;  t.  vi.  pp.  583,  586.  n.  5,  Mansi, 
t.  vi.  p.  623. 

P.  22.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  543.  1.  9,  for  1684, 
read  1624.  1.  18,  for  Dunstan,  read  Lanfranc(the  error  occurs 
in  both  editions  of  the  German  original),  n.  4,  add  Mansi, 
t.  xx.  p.  452.  n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  xvii.  pp.  314,  275,  318,  330. 

P.  23.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xx.  p.  452.  At  the  end  of 
par.  11,  add :  In  regard  to  the  present  state  of  the  law, 
Ferraris  says  (Bibliotli.  canonica,  I.e.  n.  30):  Ex  privilegio  et 
consuetudine  wcandi  sunt  ad  concilia  generalia  cum  suffragio 
decisive  cardinales  etiam  non  cpiscopi,  ablates,  et  ordinum  regu- 
larium  generates.  At  the  late  Vatican  Council,  besides  the 
cardinals  and  bishops,  also  the  ablates  nullius,  the  insulated 
general  abbots  of  whole  orders  or  congregations  (e.g.  the 
abbot  of  Einsiedeln  as  president  of  the  Helvetic  congregation 
of  Benedictines),  and  the  non-insulated  generals  and  general 
vicars  of  the  regular  clergy  and  monastic  orders  were  sum 
moned,  and  nearly  fifty  were  present. — Also  a  few  bishops 
recently  confirmed  by  the  Pope,  before  their  consecration, 
were  present  at  the  sessions,  e.g.  Keppel  of  Angus.  On  the 
other  hand,  consulting  theologians  and  canonists  were  not 
introduced  to  the  Council,  as  at  Trent, —  even  the  votes 
of  the  consultors  assembled  before  the  opening  of  the 
Council  were  placed  in  no  connection  with  the  Council.  In 
Trent,  however,  there  were  not  merely  two  congregations 


404  APPENDIX. 

appointed  from  the  number  of  the  prelates :  Prselatorum 
theologorum  and  canonistarum,  but  also  the  theologi  minores  (not 
prelates)  had  much  to  do.  They  had,  in  particular,  the 
preparation  and  preliminary  discussion  in  questions  of  dogma. 
The  general  secretary  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  Bishop 
Masarelli,  says  on  this  subject  (I.e.) :  "  Mos  fuit  in  sacro 
Concilio  Trid.  tarn  sub  Paulo  in.  quam  Julio  in.  et  Pio  iv. 
p.m.  perpetuo  observatus,  ut  cum  de  dogmatibus  fidei  agendum 
esset,  primum  articuli  inter  catholicos  et  hsereticos  controversi 
ex  eorum  libris  colligerentur :  qui  antequam  patribus  pro- 
penerentur,  exhibebantur  disputandi  ac  discutiendi  theologis 
minoribus.  .  .  .  His  igitur  theologis  per  aliquot  dies  ante 
articuli,  super  quibus  sententias  dicturi  erant,  exhibebantur 
unacum  quibusdam  interrogatoriis,  ad  quae  pro  faciliori  et 
aptiori  ipsius  dogmatis  examinatione  respondere  tenerentur," 
etc.  The  transactions  and  disputations  of  these  theologians 
were  public,  and  whoever  liked  could  be  present  at  them. — 
In  regard  to  provincial  Synods,  and  those  who  had  a  right  to 
be  summoned  and  to  vote  at  them,  cf.  Ferraris,  Bill,  canon, 
s.v.  Concilium,  art.  ii.,  and  the  treatise,  De  conciliorum  pro- 
mncialium  convocatione,  in  Moy,  Archiv  fur  Kirchenr.  Bd.  iii. 
Heft  5,  S.  331. 

P.  24.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  viii.  p.  543.  n.  2,  Mansi, 
t.  viii.  p.  556.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  x.  p.  617.  n.  4,  Mansi, 
t.  x.  p.  1223  ;  Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  968.  n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  viii. 
p.  719.  n.  6,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  68  ;  t.  xii.  p.  170  E. 

P.  25.  At  the  end  of  par.  12,  a  new  par.  13,  so  that  13 
in  English  translation  represents  14  in  the  second  German 
edition:  13.  Considering  the  great  number  of  members 
present  at  most  of  the  Synods,  and  the  great  diversities  of 
education,  disposition,  character,  and  interests,  even  among 
the  bishops,  it  is  not  surprising  that  the  debates  often  became 
heated  and  passionate,  and  that  much  that  was  human  crept 
in,  so  that  Gregory  of  Nazianzus,  when  he  had  suffered  much 
that  was  disagreeable  at  the  second  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
suffered  himself  to  be  carried  away  to  bitter  complaints 
against  Synods :  "  I  flee,"  he  says,  "  from  every  assembly  of 
bishops,  for  I  have  never  seen  that  a  Synod  has  come  to  a 
good  end,  or  that  the  evils  of  the  Church  have  been  removed 


APPENDIX.  405 

instead  of  being  increased ;  for  indescribable  quarrelling  and 
rivalry  reign  there."  l  This  was  the  utterance  of  an  irritated 
and  injured  mind  ;  and  if  we  will  judge  quietly  and  reason 
ably,  we  shall  agree  with  the  words  of  one  of  the  most 
important  of  the  later  Protestant  historians  of  the  Church  : 
"  With  all  these  outbreaks  of  human  passion  (in  the  Councils 
of  the  Church),  we  must  not  overlook  the  fact  that  the  Lord 
was  guiding  the  helm  of  the  ship  of  the  Church,  and  saved 
it  through  all  the  wild  waves  and  storms.  The  spirit 
of  truth,  which  will  never  depart  from  her,  always  con 
quered  error  at  last,  and  glorified  itself  even  through  weak 
instruments." 2 

1  Greg.  Naz.  ad  Procopium,  ep.  iii.  (earlier  55).    Cf.  the  author's  treatise  on 
Gregory  Naz.  in  the  Kirchenlexicon  of  Wetzer  and  Welte. 

2  Dr.  Schaff  in  the  Joihrb.  fur  deutsche  Theol.  Bd.  viii.  Heft  2,  S.  346. 

P.  25.  n.  4,  add  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1119;  t.  vi.  p.  563; 
t.  vii.  p.  129.  n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  210.  n.  6,  Mansi,  t.  xii. 
p.  1000;  t.  xiii.  pp.  502,  728;  t.  xvi.  pp.  18,  81,  157. 

P.  26.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xv.  p.  200.  n.  2,  Mansi, 
t.  xvi.  pp.  171,  406.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  x.  pp.  615,  653.  n.  5, 
Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  884.  1.  5,  Constance,  add  and  Basel. 

P.  28.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  423.  n.  2,  Mansi, 
t.  xvi.  p.  22  C,  and  314  B.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  pp.  37,  38, 
41  sqq.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  pp.  81,  96,  151,  398. 

P.  29.  n.  1,  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  159.  n.  2,  Mansi,  Lc. 
pp.  188-190,  408  sqq.  n.  3,  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  206  B.  n.  4, 
Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  18,  37,  44  sqq.  n.  5,  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  159E. 
and  178,  18  C;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  764 E. 

P.  30.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  189.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  xii. 
p.  992.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  379  sq.,  736  sq.  n.  4, 
Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  414,  415  D.  E.  n.  5,  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  730. 
n.  6,  Mansi,  Lc.  p.  379  sqq. 

P.  31.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  210,  218,  222,  230. 
n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  639,  655,  682.  n.  3,  Mansi, 
Lc.  pp.  214  sq.,  219  sqq.,  226  sq.,  231,  518  C.  D.,  523,  543, 
547,  550  B.  n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  387. 

P.  32.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  986.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  ix. 
p.  53.  n.  4,  add  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  147  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  655. 
n.  5,  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  519.  n.  6,  Mansi,  Lc.  pp.  563,  938. 


406  APPENDIX. 

n.  7,  Mansi,  I.e.  pp.  583,  586,   606,  618,  623,  655   D:  953, 
974.     n.  8,  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  128,  129  sqq. 

P.  33.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  454  A;  Hardouin,  ii. 
p.  643.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  566.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  vii. 
p.  135  C.  n.  6,  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  983  sqq.  n.  5,  add: 
That  our  interpretation  of  the  words  TMV  elo-w  and  rwv 
6/CT09  is  the  correct  one,  is  shown  (in  opposition  to  Gieseler 
and  others)  by  Dr.  Schaff,  Professor  of  Theology  in  Mercers- 
burg  in  Pennsylvania,  in  his  treatise  "  On  the  (Ecumenical 
Councils  with  reference  to  Dr.  Hefele's  History  of  the 
Councils,"  in  the  Jahrluch  f.  deutsche  Theol.  Bd.  viii.  S.  335. 
Ordinarily  a  distinction  is  made  between  a  prccsidentia 
honoraria  (of  the  Emperor)  and  auctoritativa  (of  the  papal 
legates). 

P.  34.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1119.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  iv. 
p.  556.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1019. 

P.  35.  n.  1,  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1123.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  iv. 
pp.  1127,  1207,  1211.  n.  7,  Mansi,  t.  iv.  p.  1363.  n.  9, 
Mansi,  t.  ix.  p.  62.  Add  the  words  of  Vigilius  in  his 
Constitutum:  In  qua  in  legatis  suis  atque  vicariis,  id  est, 
beatissimo  Cyrillo  Alexandrine  urbis  episcopo,  Arcadio  et 
Projecto  episcopis  et  Philippo  presbytero,  beatissimus 
Cselestinus  Papa  senioris  Eomoe  noscitur  pnesedisse.  Add 
the  following  to  par.  6  :  To  a  similar  effect  Bishop  Mau- 
suetus  of  Milan  (A.D.  679)  expresses  himself  in  his  letter  to 
the  Emperor  Constantine  Pogonatus :  "  Ubi  sancUe  memorise 
.Cyrillus  Alexandrinse  ecclesiae  praesul  auctoritate  sedis 
apostolicse  pneditus  caput  extitit  (Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  204; 
Hardouin,  t.  iii.  p.  1052).  In  other  places  Pope  Cselestine 
and  Cyril  are  mentioned  in  common  as  presidents  of  the  third 
(Ecumenical  Synod ;  so  repeatedly  (which  is  of  peculiar 
importance)  in  the  Acts  of  the  fourth  (Ecumenical  Council : 

(f)6(TiaKr)s   crvvoftov,   779 
XeAecrrtz'09,    o    TT}?    a 

irpoebpos,  KCLL  o  fjLaKapia)Taro<i  KvpiXXos,  K.T.\. 
(Mansi,  t.  vii.  p.  6  D. ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii.  p.  401  A.  So:  ??? 
^76/160^69  ol  ayiwTaroi  KeXearlvos  /cal  KvpiXkos  (Mansi,  I.e. 
p.  109  B;  Hardouin,  I.e.  p.  45  IE).  Similarly,  the  Emperor 
Marcian  expressed  himself,  and  the  bishops  of  Armenia  in 


APPENDIX.  407 

their  letter  to  the  Emperor  Leo  in  the  eighth  century  (Mansi, 
t.  vii.  p.  588  ;  Hardouin,  t.  il  p.  742).  Having  regard  to 
these  ancient  authorities,  the  view  that  Cyril  presided  in  his 
quality  of  over  -  metropolitan  (patriarch)  must  appear  un 
tenable. 

P.  37.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  pp.  183,  488  sq.  n.  2,  for 
71,  read  17. 

P.  40.  n.  2,  add  Hardouin,  t.  i.  pp.  428,  451,  311  sqq. 

P.  42.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  600.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  iii. 
p.  558. 

P.  43.  n.  2,  add  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  1615.  n.  3,  Hardouin, 
t.  i.  pp.  1670,  1715.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  vii.  pp.  475,  478,  498, 
502.  n.  6,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  698,  909.  n.  7,  Mansi,  t.  xiii. 
pp.  414,  415  E ;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  (not  ii.). 

P.  44.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  202.  Under  par.  1  :  8. 
"  Dionysius  the  Less,"  etc.  The  author  silently  omits  this 
paragraph  from  his  second  edition,  perceiving  that  it  added  no 
strength  to  his  argument. 

P.  45.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  iii.  p.  631. 

P.  46.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  156  ;  Hardouin,  t.  ii. 
p.  660  A.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  215.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  vi. 
p.  279.  n.  4,  Mansi,  t.  vi.  p.  226. 

P.  47.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  ix.  pp.  414  sqq.,  457  sqq. 
n.  2,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  p.  683.  n.  3,  Mansi,  t.  xi.  pp.  727,  1051. 
n.  7,  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  p.  808  C. 

P.  48.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  xiii.  pp.  759-810.  n.  2, 
Mansi,  t.  xvi.  p.  200  sqq.  n.  3,  Mansi,  I.e.  p.  206.  n.  4, 
Mansi,  I.e.  p.  1. 

P.  50.  n.  2,  add  Mansi,  t.  xxvii.  p.  1201.  The  paragraph 
on  p.  50,  following  after  conciliariter,  has  been  expanded  as 
follows :  We  have  shown,  in  the  seventh  volume  of  this 
history,  S.  368  ff.  (following  up  Hiibler,  Die  Constanzer 
Reformation,  Leipzig  1867),  that  the  expression  of  Martin  in 
question  referred  merely  to  the  special  question  which  was 
discussed  at  Constance  (see  Bd.  vii.  S.  367),  and  set  forth, 
that  what  had  been  decided  in  materiis  fidei,  not  merely  by 
particular  nations  (nationalitcr),  but  by  the  whole  Council 
(conciliariter),  was  recognised  by  the  Pope.  It  was 
therefore  impossible  that  the  Pope  should  say  that  he  with- 


408  APPENDIX. 

held  his  confirmation  from  all  the  other  decrees  of  the 
Council  which  did  not  touch  matters  of  the  faith,  for  he  must 
then  have  withheld  his  confirmation  from  the  decrees  of 
reform  of  the  thirty-ninth  session,  and  in  a  very  unskilful 
manner  have  cut  away  the  ground  from  under  his  feet,  for 
even  the  decrees  by  which  John  xxm.  and  Benedict  xm. 
were  deposed  and  a  new  election  ordered,  did  not  deal  de 
materiis  fidei.  Add  to  this  that  Martin  v.,  in  his  bull  of 
February  22,  1418,  demanded  of  every  one  the  recognition 
that  the  Council  of  Constance  was  (Ecumenical,  and  that 
what  it  ordained  in  favorem  fidei  ET  SALUTEM  ANIMAEUM 
must  be  held  fast  (Mansi,  t.  xxvii.  p.  1211  ;  Hardouin, 
t.  viii.  p.  914).  He  thus  recognised  the  universally  binding, 
and  so  oecumenical,  character  of  other  decrees  than  those 
in  materiis  fidei.  Repeatedly  he  designated  the  Council  of 
Constance  as  oecumenical,  but  he  guarded  himself  against 
pronouncing  a  quite  universal  confirmation  of  it,  and  his 
words  in  favorem  fidei  et  salutem  animarum  quite  seem  to 
have  a  restrictive  character.  He  indicated  by  this  that  he 
excepted  some  decrees  from  the  approbation,  but,  in  the 
interests  of  peace,  did  not  wish  to  express  himself  more 
clearly  (see  Bd.  vii.  S.  372). 

How  stands  the  case  with  Eugenius  iv.  ?  In  his  second 
bull,  Dudum  sacrum,  of  December  15,  1433,  in  which,  after 
a  long  controversy,  he  recognised  the  Council  of  Basel,  which 
he  had  previously  endeavoured  to  dissolve  or  to  remove  to 
Bologna,  he  repeatedly  calls  it  sacrum  generale  Basileense 
Concilium  (so  oecumenical),  and  says  :  Decernimus  et  declaramus, 
prcefatum  generale  Concilium  Basileense  a  tempore  prcedictce 

inchoationis   suce   legitime    continuatum  fuisse   et   esse 

ipsumque  sacrum  generale  Concilium  Basileense  pure,  simpliciter, 
et  cum  effectu  ac  omni  dewtione  et  favore  prosequimur  et  prosequi 
intendimus  (Mansi,  t.  xxix.  p.  78  sq. ;  Hardouin,  t.  viii. 
p.  1172  sq.).  From  this  it  is  clear  that  Pope  Eugenius 
recognised  the  previous  state  of  the  Council  of  Basel  as  lawful. 
And  from  this  the  Gallicans  further  infer  that  he  recog 
nised  and  ratified  in  particular  all  the  decrees  hitherto  issued 
at  Basel,  and  therefore  also  that  respecting  the  superiority 
of  a  General  Council  over  the  Pope  (see  Natal.  Alex.  Hist. 


APPENDIX.  409 

Eccl.  t.  ix.  p.  425).  Others,  however,  particularly  the  learned 
Spanish  theologian  (afterwards  Cardinal)  Torquemada,  who 
was  a  member  of  the  Synod  of  Basel,  contest  the  validity  of 
the  Bull  Dudum  sacrum  of  December  15,  1433,  because  it 
was  extorted  from  the  Pope,  during  a  sickness,  by  a  threat 
that  all  the  princes  would  abandon  him  if  he  did  not  yield ; 
and  Eoncaglia,  who  defended  the  argument  of  Torquemada 
against  Natalis  Alexander  (I.e.),  adds  further :  Even  in  case 
the  papal  recognition  of  the  Synod  of  Basel  was  not 
extorted,  Eugenius  approved  of  this  Synod  only  in  general, 
not  all  its  particular  decrees, — particularly  not  the  principle 
that  the  Pope  is  subject  to  an  (Ecumenical  Council.  Other 
Councils,  he  argues,  have  been  received  generally,  and  yet 
particular  decrees  of  theirs  have  been  rejected,  as,  e.g.,  the 
28th  canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (see  vol.  iii.  p.  410  ff.). 
Eoncaglia  appeals  to  the  statement  of  Torquemada,  according 
to  which  the  members  of  the  Council  of  Basel  repeatedly 
demanded  of  the  Pope  the  confirmation,  not  merely  of  the 
existence  of  the  assembly,  but  also  of  its  decrees,  but  always 
in  vain  ;  and  that  Eugenius  had  openly  declared  at  Florence, 
in  his  presence  and  in  that  of  Cardinal  Julian  Cesarini,  and 
of  others  :  "  Nos  quidem  bene^roiyress^mConcilii  approbavimus, 
volentes  ut  procederet  ut  inceperat;  non  tamen  approbavimus 
ejus  decreta."  It  is  known,  moreover,  Eoncaglia  proceeds,  that 
Eugenius  always  protested  against  the  thesis  of  Basel  of  the 
superiority  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council  over  the  Pope,  and  that 
his  legates  were  not  present  at  the  eighteenth  session,  at  which 
this  proposition  (after  the  restoration  of  peace  with  Eugenius) 
was  again  pronounced.  In  order  to  know  accurately  the 
view  and  opinion  of  Eugenius,  we  must  consider  another 
expression  of  his.  On  July  22,  1446,  he  wrote  to  his  legate : 
"  As  his  predecessors  honoured  the  (Ecumenical  Synods,  so 
he  also  recognised  and  honoured  the  (Ecumenical  Councils 
of  Constance  and  Basel,  the  latter  until  its  removal  by  him 
(after  the  twenty-fifth  session),  dbsque  tamen  prcejudicio  juris, 
dignitatis,  et  proceminent'we  s.  sedis  Apostolical "  (Eaynald,  Cont. 
Annal.  Baron,  ad  ann.  1446,  3).  If  we  finally  add  to  this,  that 
Eugenius,  in  the  Bull  Moyses  of  September  4,  1439,  expressly 
rejected  the  propositions  which,  in  the  thirty-third  session 


410  APPENDIX. 

of  Basel,  had  been  raised  to  the  position  of  dogmas,  on  the 
superiority  of  an  (Ecumenical  Council  to  the  Pope,  and  its 
indissolubility  by  him  (Hardouin,  t.  ix.  p.  1006  sq. ;  Raynald, 
1439,  29),  it  seems  to  me  beyond  all  doubt  that  Eugenius 
would  never  approve  of  the  thesis  of  the  superiority  of  an 
(Ecumenical  Council  over  the  Pope ;  that,  therefore,  in  his 
second  Bull  Dudum  sacrum  he  only  recognised  generally  the 
existence  of  the  Synod  of  Basel,  and  made  use  of  expressions 
which  implicite  might  appear  to  include  an  approval  of  that 
thesis.  In  the  same  way  as  Martin  v.,  in  the  interests  of 
peace  he  was  unwilling  to  express  himself  clearly  on  this 
controverted  point,  reserving  this  for  a  more  favourable  time. 
And  this  seems  to  have  come  in  the  year  1439  (in  the  Bull 
Moyses)  and  in  the  year  1446  (in  the  letter  to  the  legates). 
After  all  this,  we  are  unable  to  approve  of  the  statement, 
that  even  two  Popes  had  declared  the  superiority  of  an 
(Ecumenical  Council  over  the  Pope. 

P.  52.  After  the  paragraph  ending  "pronounced,"  insert 
the  following : — In  all  the  controversies  respecting  Eome,  the 
rule  of  the  eighth  (Ecumenical  Synod  is  to  be  kept  in  view, 
which  in  canon  21  (Greek,  13)  sets  forth:  "Si  synodus 
universalis  fuerit  congregata,  et  facta  fuerit  etiam  de  sancta 
Eomanorum  ecclesia  qusevis  ambiguitas  et  controversia, 
oportet  venerabiliter  et  cum  convenient!  reverentia  de 
proposita  qusestione  sciscitari  et  solutionem  accipere,  aut 
proficere,  aut  profectum  facere,  non  tamen  audacter  sen- 
tentiam  dicere  contra  summos  senioris  Eomse  pontifices." 
Mansi,  t.  xvi.  pp.  174,  406;  Hardouin,  t.  v.  pp.  909, 
1103. 

P.  53.  After  the  paragraph  ending  "  (Ecumenical  Councils," 
add :  When  Augustine  says  that  not  merely  the  decrees  of 
lesser  Councils  are  improved  by  those  which  are  (Ecumenical, 
but  that  even  the  earlier  are  sometimes  amended  by  the 
later,1  he  refers  to  an  advance  in  the  development  of 
Christian  doctrine  in  the  sense  of  Vincentius  Lirinensis,2  of 
a  "  steady,  homogeneous,  and  conservative  progress  within  the 
truth,  without  any  positive  error,  but  not  of  a  development 
through  extreme  opposites,  in  the  sense  of  the  dialectic  pro 
cess  according  to  the  Hegelian  philosophy ; " 3  and  therefore 


APPENDIX.  411 

Augustine  cannot  be  quoted  as  an  opponent  of  the  infallibility 
of  (Ecumenical  Councils. 

1  Augustin.  De  Baptismo  contra  Donatistas,  ii.  3  :   "  Et  ipsa  concilia,  quse 
per   singulas   regiones  vel  provincias   fiunt,  plenariorum  conciliorum   auctori- 
tati,    quee  fiunt   ex  universe   orbe    Christiano,    sine  ullis   ambagibus  cedere, 
ipsaque  pleniora  ssepe  priora  posterioribus  emendari,  quum  aliquo  experimento 
rerum  aperitur  quod  clausum  erat  et  cognoscitur  quod  latebat "  (e.g.  the  dogma 
of  two  natures  in  one  Divine  Person,    which  at  the  Synod  of  Nicsea  adhuc 
latebat}. 

2  Vincent.   Lirin.   Commonit.   c.   28:  "Nullusque  ergo  in  ecclesia  Christi 
profectus  habebitur  religionis  ? — Habeatur  plane  et   maximus  ; "    and   c.   30  : 
"  Accipiant  licet  evidentiam,  lucem,  distinctionem,  sed  retineant  necesse  est 
plenitudinem,  integritatem,  proprietatem. " 

3  Dr.  Schaff,  in  the  treatise  quoted  above,  S.  341. 

P.  55.  At  the  end  of  Sec.  9,  add :  Pope  Benedict  xiv.  also 
forbade  such  an  appeal,  and  threatened  the  appellant  with 
excommunication.  (Constit.  14,  incip.  Pastorcdis,  S.  2.)  The 
curialistic  statement,  however,  that  an  appeal  might  be 
carried  from  an  (Ecumenical  Council  to  the  Pope  (Ferraris, 
latest  edition,  I.e.  s.v.  Concilium,  art.  i.  n.  92),  rests  on  the 
totally  false  assumption  that  an  (Ecumenical  Council  is 
possible  without  a  Pope.  When  I  speak  of  an  (Ecumenical 
Council,  the  papal  confirmation  of  it  is  assumed,  and  in 
that  case  there  can,  of  course,  no  appeal  to  the  Pope  take 
place. 

Sec.  10,  add:  Bellarmine  is  followed  by  most  other 
theologians  and  canonists,  e.g.,  by  Lucius  Ferraris  in  his 
Biblwtheca  canonica,  s.v.  Concilium,  art.  i.  n.  74.  Apart  from 
the  fact,  however,  that  to  these  eighteen  the  recent  Vatican 
Council  is  to  be  added,  we  believe  that  many  decrees  of 
the  Councils  of  Constance  and  Basel  bear  an  (Ecumenical 
character,  and  so  there  results  the  following  table  of  twenty 
(Ecumenical  Councils. 

After  14,  "  the  second  of  Lyons,"  read: 

15.  That  of  Vienne,  in  131 1.1 

16.  The   Council  of  Constance,  in  1414—1418,  partially, 

1  The  Council  of  Constance  gave  at  its  thirty-ninth  session  a  catalogue  of 
the  (Ecumenical  Synods. — First  are  named  the  first  eight,  and  then  they  con 
tinue  :  "Nee  non  Later ancnsis,  Lugdunensis,  et  Viennensis  generalium  Con 
ciliorum."  Mansi,  t.  xxvii.  p.  1161  ;  Hardouin,  t.  viii.  p.  159.  It  would 
have  been  more  correct  to  put  those  words  in  the  plural,  Laterancnsium  et 
Lugduncnsium . 


412  APPENDIX. 

namely,  (a)  the  last  sessions  under  the  presidency  of  Martin  v. 
(Sess.  42—45  inclus.),  and  (&).  of  the  decrees  of  the  earlier 
sessions,  those  which  Martin  v.  confirmed. 

17.  The  Council  of  Basel,  in  1431  ff.,  partially,  namely, 

(a)  only  its  first  half  or  the   twenty-five  first  sessions,  until 
the  removal  of  the   Synod   to  Ferrara  by  Eugenius  iv. ;  but 

(b)  of  these  twenty-five  sessions  only  those  decrees  have  an 
(Ecumenical   character   which   have   regard  to  three  points : 
the    rooting    out    of     heresy,    the    restoration    of    peace    in 
Christendom,   and  the  general  reform  of  the  Church  in  its 
head  and   members,  and  at  the  same  time  do  not  derogate 
from  the  apostolic   see,   for    only   these   were   approved    by 
Eugenius  iv. 

176.  Not  as  a  separate  (Ecumenical  Council,  but  as  a 
continuation  of  the  Synod  of  Basel,  we  are  to  consider  that  of 
Ferrara-Florence  in  the  years  1438—1442;  since  the  Synod  of 
Basel  was  removed  by  Eugenius  iv.,  first  to  Ferrara  (January 
8,  1438),  and  from  thence  to  Florence  (January,  1439). 

18.  The  fifth  Lateran  Council,  1512-1517. 

19.  The  Council  of  Trent,  1545-1563. 

20.  The  Vatican,  from  December   8,  1869,  to  July  18, 
1870  (uncompleted). 

P.  58.  1.  2  ab  im.,  after  "  Pope  Martin  v.,"  add:  We 
have  already  seen  that  Martin  v.  repeatedly  designated  the 
Council  of  Constance  as  (Ecumenical]  and,  in  his  Bull  of 
February  22,  1418,  demanded  of  everyone  the  recognition, 
that  the  Council  of  Constance  was  (Ecumenical,  and  that 
what  it  ordained  in  favorem  fidei  et  salutem  animarum  must 
be  held  fast.  (Everyone  suspected  of  heresy  must  be  asked), 
'  utrum  credat,  teneat,  et  asserat,  quod  quodlibet  concilium 
generale,  et  etiam  Constantiense  universalem  ecclesiam,  reprse- 
sentat,'  and  '  item,  utrum  credat,  quod  illud,  quod  sacrum 
concilium  Constantiense,  universalem  ecclesiam  reprcesentans,  ap- 
probavit  et  approbat  in  favorem  fidei  et  ad  salutem  animarum, 
quod  hoc  est  ab  universis  Christi  fidelibus  approbandum  et 
tenendum,'  etc.  Mansi,  t.  xxvii.  p.  1211;  Hardouin,  t.  viii. 
p.  914.  No  less  did  Martin  v.,  in  the  last  session  of  Con 
stance,  on  occasion  of  the  controversy  of  Falkenberg,  declare : 
'  Quod  omnia  et  singula  determinata,'  etc.  In  the  same 


APPENDIX.  413 

manner  his  successor,  Pope  Eugene  IV.  .  .  .  veneramur." 
Thus  in  Kaynald,  1446,  3,  and  in  the  Animadvers.  of 
Eoncaglia  on  Nat.  Alex.  Hist.  Eccl.  t.  ix.  p.  465#,  ed.  Ven. 
1778.  We  should  be  betrayed  into  a  contradiction  of  these 
papal  Bulls  and  declarations,  if  we  were  to  remove  the 
Council  of  Constance  completely  out  of  the  (Ecumenical 
rank.  It  is  quite  evident  that  these  two  Popes  wished  many 
of  the  decrees  of  Constance  to  be  regarded  as  the  decisions 
of  an  (Ecumenical  Synod.  Which  of  these  are  to  be  so 
regarded,  neither  Martin  v.  nor  Eugenius  IV.  says  in  specie ; 
but  it  is  clear  that  both  except  from  their  approval  those 
decrees  of  Constance  which  encroach  upon  the  importance 
and  the  rights  of  the  holy  see,  and  so  particularly  the 
decrees  of  the  third  to  fifth  sessions  of  Constance, — a  view 
which  is  contested  by  the  Gallicans  (cf.  Nat.  Alex.  I.e.  Diss.  iv. 
pp.  286-363). 

In  concurrence  with  Bellarmine  and  most  of  the  Catholic 
theologians  and  canonists,  we  have  reckoned  the  Council  of 
Ferrara  -  Florence  among  the  (Ecumenical ;  but  it  has  not 
escaped  us  that  the  Synod  of  Basel,  and  all  who  with  it 
denied  to  the  Pope  the  right  to  remove  an  (Ecumenical 
Council,  were  consequently  obliged  to  contest  the  legality  of 
the  Council  of  Ferrara -Florence.  This  Gallican  contention 
was  also  brought  forward  at  Trent,  since,  in  the  debates 
which  preceded  the  twenty-third  general  session,  the  French 
opposed  the  expression :  to  the  Pope  there  had  been  delivered 
by  Christ  the  plena  potestas  pascendi,  regendi,  et  gulernandi 
ecclesiam  universalem ;  and,  in  answer  to  the  Italians  who 
appealed  in  support  of  it  to  the  precedent  of  the  Council  of 
Florence  (in  the  decree  of  union  Pro  Greeds),  replied  that  this 
was  not  (Ecumenical  (Sarpi,  Hist,  du  Concile  de  Trente,  liv.  vii. 
n.  lii. ;  Pallavacini,  Hist.  Concilii  Trident,  lib.  xix.  c.  12, 
n.  11;  in  the  projected  8  canons  for  the  twenty-third  session 
the  expression  referred  to  was  accepted).  The  attacks  made 
by  the  Gallicans  at  Trent  against  the  Florentine  Council 
are  mentioned  also  by  Eaynald  (1563,  4)  and  Pallavacini 
(lib.  xix.  c.  16,  n.  9), — by  the  latter  with  the  remark 
that  the  celebrated  Cardinal  Charles  of  Lorraine,  in  a  letter 
to  Berton,  his  agent  in  Home,  which  had  to  be  read  to  the 


414  APPENDIX. 

Pope  (Pius  IV.),  declared :  "  A  se  approbari  omni  ex  parte 
Synodum  Constantiensem  ac  Basileensem,  non  item  Florenti- 
nam."  Probably  the  passage  is  meant  which  Natalis  Alex 
ander  (Hist.  Ecd.  Sec.  xv.  et  xvi.  Diss.  x.  De  Synodo  Florent.  I.e. 
p.  489)  quoted  from  the  letter  of  the  cardinal  to  Berton 
completely  as  follows :  "  Nunc  superest  titulorum  ultimus 
e  Florentina  syriodo  depromtus  (Rector  universalis  ccclesicc), 
quern  beatissimo  Patri  iiostro  tribuere  volunt.  Ego  negare 
non  possum  quin  Gallus  sim  et  Parisiensis  Academise 
alumnus,  in  qua  Pontificem  subesse  Ooncilio  tenetur  et  qui 
decent  ibi  contrarium,  tanquam  haeretici  notantur.  Apud 
Gallos  Constantiense  Concilium  in  partibus  suis  omnibus 
ut  generate  habetur,  Basileense  in  auctoritatem  admittitur, 
Florentinum  perinde  ac  nee  legitimum  nee  generale  re- 
pudiatur." 

This  strong  opposition  of  the  Gallicans,  at  the  time  of 
the  Council  of  Trent,  against  the  Council  of  Ferrara-Florence, 
subsequently  became  much  weakened,  so  that,  e.g.,  Natalis 
Alexander,  although  in  other  respects  standing  on  the  side 
of  Basel,  yet  in  a  special  dissertation  (x.)  fully  defended  the 
legitimate  convocation  and  the  (Ecumenical  character  of  this 
Council.  Natalis  Alexander,  indeed,  maintained,  in  generate, 
with  the  members  of  Basel,  that  an  (Ecumenical  Council 
cannot  be  removed  by  the  Pope,  but  he  says,  with  Mcolas 
of  Cusa :  "  Komanum  Pontificem  Conciliorum  cecumenicorum 
decreta  et  canones  temperare  posse  ac  de  iis  dispensare,  ubi  id 
postulat  publica  necessitas  aut  evidens  Ecclesise  utilitas." 
In  the  case  before  us,  however,  it  had  been  absolutely 
necessary,  on  account  of  the  union  with  the  Greeks,  to  hold 
a  Council  in  Italy.  Thus  the  Council  of  Basel  had  been  re 
moved  by  Eugenius  IV.  de  consensu  SANIORIS  partis  Patrum  to 
Ferrara ;  and,  in  conclusion,  the  Synod  of  Basel,  in  its  nine 
teenth  session,  had  itself  conceded  a  removal  ex  justis  causis 
et  manifestis,  in  the  words :  "  Obsecratque  per  viscera  miseri- 
cordise  Jesu  Christi  .  .  .  ut  ante  completam  reformationem 
.  .  .  nullatenus  dissolutionis  consensum  prsestent,  nee  loci 
mutationem  fieri  permittant,  nisi  ex  justis  causis  et  manifestis." 
If  the  regular  convocation  of  the  Florentine  Synod  is  granted, 
its  (Ecumenical  character  can  be  no  longer  effectually  con- 


APPENDIX.  415 

tested,  as  Pope  and  bishops  were  here  assembled  in  unity,  and 
the  characteristics  necessary  for  an  (Ecumenical  Synod  were 
not  lacking.  Nat.  Alex.  Hist.  Eccles.  Sec.  xv.  et  xvi.  Diss.  x. 
I.e.  pp.  487-493. 

P.  57.  n.  1,  add  Mausi,  t.  xxvii.  p.  1162 ;  Hardouin, 
t.  viii.  p.  859;  t.  ix.  p.  1719. 

P.  63.  add:  The  two  Councils  at  Pavia  and  Siena,  in  the 
year  1423,  were  recognised  as  OEcumenical,  and  were  so 
called  by  the  Popes.  (Cf.  in  the  Bull  of  Martin  v.  in  Man  si, 
t.  xxix.  p.  8  ;  Hardouin,  t.  viii.  I.e.  p.  1109.)  Those  of  Siena 
also  designated  themselves  as  a  sacrosancta  generalis  (Mansi,  t. 
xxviii.  p.  1060  ;  Hardouin,  t.  viii.  p.  1015);  but  as  both  led 
to  no  result,  and  were  essentially  nothing  but  miscarried 
attempts  to  hold  an  (Ecumenical  Council,  whilst  the  attempt 
succeeded  eight  years  afterwards  at  Basel,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  they  should  not  be  inserted  in  our  table  of  (Ecumenical 
Councils. 

It  is  further  to  be  remarked  that  even  in  the  fifteenth 
century,  the  Popes,  at  their  entrance  on  office,  were  required 
to  swear  to  only  eight  (Ecumenical  Councils.  We  learn  this 
from  the  papal  legates  at  the  Council  of  Basel  (Mansi,  t.  xxx. 
p.  657).  Thus  the  earlier  formula  of  an  oath  for  the  Popes, 
as  it  is  given  in  the  Liber  Diurnus  (ed.  de  Eoziere,  1869, 
pp.  177  sq.  and  186),  speaks  of  only  six  (Ecumenical  Councils, 
is  explained  by  the  antiquity  of  this  formula,  which  belongs 
to  the  beginning  of  the  eighth  century  (715).  From  this 
Liber  Diurnus  Gratian  (Corp.  jur.  can.  c.  8,  Dist.  xvi.) 
adduces  octo  Concilia  (instead  of  six) ;  and  yet  J.  H.  Bohmer, 
in  his  edition,  thinks  that  this  passage  belongs  to  the  year 
715,  and  so  to  a  time  which  was  long  previous  to  the  seventh 
and  eighth  (Ecumenical  Councils. 

When  the  Acts  of  the  Florentine  Synod  were  printed 
for  the  first  time  under  Clement  VIL,  in  the  year  1526,  the 
superscription  ran  :  Synodus  CEcumenica  OCTAVA.  This  designa 
tion  came  from  a  Greek  notary  (the  Greeks  accept  only  the 
first  seven  (Ecumenical  Synods),  and  in  Eome  they  neglected 
to  correct  this  error  (cf.  Baron.  869,  64;  and  Nat.  Alex.  I.e. 
49  la).  [These  sections  have  been,  to  a  large  extent,  rearranged 
and  rewritten.  All  the  essential  additions  are  here  given.] 


416  APPENDIX. 

P.  64.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  ii.  p.  476.  n.  2,  A  partial 
exception  occurred  at  the  third  (Ecumenical  Council. 

P.  66.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  i.  p.  10  ;  t.  x.  p.  617.  The 
manner  of  the  opening  of  the  latest  Vatican  Council  is 
described  in  the  Acta  et  Decreta  SS.  et  CEcumen.  Cone.  Vat. 
Freiburg,  Herder  1871,  S.  120ff.  n.  2,  Mansi,  t,  xxix. 
p.  3  7  7  ;  cf .  the  author's  Conciliengesch.  Bd.  vii.  S.  8  3  ;  and  Van 
der  Hardt,  Cone.  Const,  t.  ii.  pt.  viii.  p.  230  ;  t.  iv.  pt.  ii.  p.  40. 

P.  67.  At  the  end  of  the  par.,  line  7,  add'.  Similarly,  it 
was  done  at  the  recent  Vatican  Synod.  The  seven  com 
missions  which  had  been  convoked  a  year  before,  and  con 
sisted  of  theologians  of  different  countries,  presented  the  work 
which  they  had  prepared  for  it.  This  consisted  of:  (1)  The 
Congregatio  cardinalicia  directrix  (to  which,  in  my  insignifi 
cance,  I  was  appointed  as  consultor) ;  (2)  the  Commissio  Ccere- 
moniarum  ;  (3)  Politico -ecclesiastica ;  (4)  Pro  ecclesiis  et  mission- 
ibus  Orientis  ;  (5)  Pro  Regular  ibus  ;  (6)  Theologica-dogmatica ; 
(7)  Pro  disciplina  ecclesiastica.  With  (partial)  use  of  the  labours 
of  these  seven  commissions,  Schemata  (sketches  for  decrees) 
were  prepared  and  presented  to  the  Council.  In  the  Council 
itself  there  were  seven  deputations :  (1)  Pro  recipiendis  et 
expendendis  Patrum  propositionibus  (ordered  by  the  Pope  him 
self)  ;  (2)  Judices  excusationum ;  (3)  Judices  querdarum  et 
controversiarum  (on  controversies  about  rank,  etc.) ;  (4) 
Deputatio  pro  rebus  ad  fidem  pertinentibus ;  (5)  Deputatio  pro 
rebus  discipline  ecclesiastics  ;  (6)  Pro  rebus  ordinum  regularium ; 
(7)  Pro  rebus  ritus  orientalis  et  apost.  missionibus  (these  six  com 
missions  chosen  by  the  Synod  itself).  Further,  the  order  of 
business  was  regulated  by  the  apostolic  letter  Multiplices  inter 
of  November  27,  1869  (see  Acta  et  Decreta  S.  Cone.  Vat. 
Fasc.  i.  Friburgi,  p.  66  sqq.);  as,  however,  no  end  could  in  that 
way  be  reached  (there  were  certainly  speeches  delivered  on 
the  Schemata  presented,  and  proposals  made,  but  it  could  not 
be  known  what  would  meet,  and  what  not,  the  approval  of 
the  Synod),  a  new  order  of  business  for  the  general  congrega 
tion  was  set  out  (printed  in  Acta  et  Decreta,  etc.,  I.e.  Fasc.  ii. 
p.  163).  If  anyone  had  objections  to  raise  against  a  pro 
posed  scheme,  and  proposals  for  improvement  to  make,  he 
was  required  to  hand  them  in  in  writing.  These  animad- 


APPENDIX.  417 

versions  were  then  considered  by  the  synodal  deputation  on 
the  subject  (e.g.  pro  rebus  ad  fidem  pertinentibus),  and  the 
scheme  was  then  altered,  reformed.  If  anyone,  however,  still 
wished  for  alterations  in  it,  he  was  required  to  present  himself 
for  a  conference  with  the  legates,  and  then  first  bring  forward 
his  proposals  by  word  of  mouth,  then  present  them  in  writing, 
i.e.  if  he  succeeded  in  coming  to  a  conference.  For  the 
legates  possessed  and  exercised  the  right,  at  the  written 
request  of  the  members,  to  require  the  assembly  to  vote  on 
the  point  brought  forward,  if  the  debate  was  finished.  The 
amendments  given  in  the  manner  mentioned  were  collected 
by  the  synodal  congregation  in  question,  were  taken  into 
consideration,  and  then  again  were  brought  before  the  general 
congregation,  so  that  votes  should  be  taken  by  standing  and 
sitting  on  the  particular  points,  whether  they  should  be 
accepted  or  not.  Finally,  the  scheme  again  reformed  in 
accordance  with  these  proposals  was  accepted  (or  rejected), 
by  placet  or  non  placet  or  placet  juxta  modum,  by  a  general 
congregation.  This  was  followed  by  the  solemn  acceptance 
(by  placet  or  non  placet)  at  the  public  session.  Against  both 
the  orders  of  business,  both  that  of  November  27,  1869 
(Multiplices  inter),  and  that  of  February  20,  1870,  representa 
tions  were  delivered  to  the  legates  by  many  bishops  (the 
minority)  on  January  2,  and  March  1,  1870,  but  without 
result  (see  Friedrich,  Documenta  ad  illustrandum  Condi. 
Vatican,  t.  i.,  Nordlingen  1871,  p.  247  sqq.  and  p.  258 
sqq.)  They  wished  (January  2)  particularly  that  the 
speeches  which  had  been  delivered  (and  stenographed)  should 
be  printed  and  sent  to  the  members,  and  that  the  schemata 
belonging  to  them  should  be  given  out  at  once,  that  the 
bishops  and  nationalities  should  be  divided  into  about  six 
groups,  who  should  then  communicate  their  proposals  and 
motions  through  their  confidential  representatives,  etc.  In 
the  second  memorial,  however  (of  March  1),  they  gave 
expression  to  the  fear  that,  on  several  points  in  the  second 
order  of  business,  the  liberty  of  individual  members  would  be 
endangered  and  the  minority  easily  prevented  from  express 
ing  their  opinion  by  premature  closing  of  the  debate.  The 
remaining  prescriptions,  having  reference  rather  to  the 
v.— 27 


418  APPENDIX. 

ceremonial  at  fche  Synod,  are  found  in  the  document :  Methodus 
servanda  inprima  sessione,  etc.,  and  in  the  Or  do  Condi.  CEcumen., 
etc.,  printed  in  the  Freiburg  edition  of  the  Ada  et  Decreta,  etc., 
I.e.  fasc.  ii.  p.  110  sqq.  and  p.  120  sqq. 

P.  68.  1.  '9,  for  lQ57,read  1567. 

P.  72.  After  the  par.  ending  "chronology,"  add :  A  new 
and  most  complete  collection  of  the  Acts  of  the  Councils  has 
been  announced  by  the  famous  Parisian  publisher,  Victor 
Palme,  edited  by  my  honoured  friend,  Dr.  JSTolte,  A.D.  1870. 
A  collection  of  the  later  Councils,  from  1682  onwards,  is 
now  being  made  by  the  Jesuits  in  Maria -Laach,  and  in 
the  year  1870  the  first  quarto  volume  appeared  (published  by 
Herder,  Freiburg)  with  the  title,  Ada  et  Decreta  Sacrorum 
Conciliorum.  Collectio  Lacensis.  Like  this  work,  the  Ada 
et  Decreta  ss.  Concilii  Vaticani  (Freiburg,  Herder)  also  form  a 
supplement  to  the  earlier  collections  of  Councils. 

P.  75.  After  par.  9,  add :  10.  Eoisselet  de  Saucliers, 
Histoire,  etc.,  des  Conciles,  6  volumes  (vols.  4-6  by  the  Abbe 
Avalon),  Paris  1844—1855.  11.  Abbe  Guerin,  Les  Conciles 
generaux  et  particulars ',  t.  i.  Bar  le  Due,  1868. 

P.  75.  After  par.  6,  add :  Finally,  there  has  appeared  a 
French  translation  of  our  History  of  the  Councils  by  Abbe 
Delarc,  Paris:  Adrien  le  Clerc,  1869  pp.,  in  6  octavo  volumes, 
extending  to  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century.  An  English 
translation  of  our  first  volume  has  been  edited  by  William  E. 
Clark,  M.A.  Oxon,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh  and  London 
1871.  One  volume,  large  Svo. 

P.  78.  n.  IJor  Hard.  i.  1493,  read  1463. 

P.  80.  Sec.  2.  [The  whole  of  this  section  has  been  re 
written,  leaving  hardly  anything  of  what  appeared  in  the 
first  edition,  and  is  here  given  entire.] 

A  second  series  of  Synods  of  the  second  century  was 
occasioned  by  the  Easter  controversies.  If  the  controversy 
in  the  ancient  Church  respecting  Easter  was  great  and 
violent,  the  controversy  which  has  arisen  among  modern 
scholars  on  this  subject  has  been  still  greater  and  more  violent.1 

1  On  the  history  of  the  controversy  on  the  Easter  question,  of.  Hilgenfeld, 
Der  Pascliastreit  in  der  alien  Kirche,  Halle  1860,  S.  4-118,  and  Schurer,  De 
controversiis  paschalibus,  Lipsiee  1869,  pp.  1-6. 


APPENDIX.  419 

First  of  all  comes  the  question,  whether  there  were,  in 
the  ancient  Church,  two  or  three  diverging  parties  on  the 
Easter  question.  In  the  first  edition  of  this  work  we  took 
the  side  of  those  scholars,  particularly  Weitzel,1  who  assumed 
the  existence  of  three  such  parties  in  the  ancient  Church. 
We  started  from  the  point  that,  in  the  apostolic  age  and  in 
the  period  immediately  following,  there  were  not  merely  two 
tendencies,  the  Pauline  and  Petrine  (Judaising),  to  be  dis 
tinguished,  but  that,  alongside  the  orthodox  Jewish  Christians, 
who,  like  Peter  and  James  the  Less,2  still  observed  the  old 
Law,  but  did  not  make  salvation  dependent  upon  it,  and 
moreover  did  not  regard  the  Gentile  Christians  as  bound  to 
such  observance  (Acts  xv.  28),  an  Ebionitish-Jewish  party 
showed  itself,  which  could  not  separate  itself  dogmatically 
from  Judaism,  and  maintained  for  all  Christians  the  perpetual 
obligation  of  the  Law.  It  was  these  who  disquieted  the 
churches  in  Galatia,  Antioch,  and  Corinth,  and,  after  the  death 
of  James  the  Less,  when  the  Petrine  Simeon  was  chosen  as  his 
successor  in  the  bishopric  of  Jerusalem,  set  up  Thebutis  in 
opposition  to  him.3  We  held  it  as  an  error  on  the  part  of 
the  so-called  Critical  School  (of  Dr.  Baur  of  Tubingen),  that 
they  obliterated  this  distinction  between  the  Jewish  Chris 
tians,  casting  into  one  mass  Petrines  and  Jews  proper, 
Simeon  and  Thebutis,  in  order  to  be  able  to  accentuate  the 
opposition  between  the  free  Pauline  and  the  Judaising  or 
Petrine  tendency. 

So  it  appeared  to  us,  and  even  now  it  seems  probable,  that 
in  the  ancient  Church  many  Judaisers  celebrated  the  Paschal 
feast  not  merely  at  the  Jewish  time,  but  with  Jewish 
observances ;  but  history  has  preserved  no  record  of  this,  and 
in  the  history  of  the  Paschal  controversy,  as  we  have  con 
vinced  ourselves  by  further  study,  this  third  party  does  not 
appear.  What  in  the  first  edition  of  this  work  we  thought 
we  had  discovered  relating  to  it  (vol.  i.  p.  298  ff.),  certainly 
refers  only  to  the  so-called  Johannean  Quartodccimans,  i.e. 

1  Die  christl.  Passafeier  der  drei  crsten  Jalirliunderte,  Pforzh.  1848. 

2  The  general  opinion   now  is,  that   James   the  bishop   of  Jerusalem  was 
different  from  James  the  Less  ;  but  this  does  not  affect  the  argument. 

3  Cf.  the  author's  art.  Ebioniten  in  Wetzer  and  Welte's  Kirchcnlexicon. 


420  APPENDIX. 

those  believers,  especially  in  Proconsular  Asia,  who  always 
celebrated  Easter  on  the  (second)  evening  of  the  14th  of 
Nisan  (quarta  decima  =  tS'),  as  was  commanded  in  Ex.  xii.  6, 
and  professed  to  derive  this  practice  from  the  Evangelist 
John.1  From  Eusebius,  too  (Hist.  Eccl.  v.  15),  and  from 
the  spurious  but  ancient  appendix  to  Tertullian's  writing, 
De  Prcescriptione,c.53  on  Blastus,whom  we  previously  indicated 
as  the  only  Ebionite  Quartodeciman  known  ly  name ;  from 
which  it  is  clear  that  he  Judaised  (latenter  Judaismum  vult 
inducere,  says  pseudo-Tertullian),  but  not  a  word  is  said  of  his 
keeping  of  Easter. 

The  Hebrew  word  nD3?  in  Aramaic  KHpB,  signifies  transitus, 
passing  over  (Ex.  xii.  21,  27),  i.e.  the  passing  over  the  dwell 
ings  of  the  Israelites  by  the  destroying  angel.  The  Jewish 
Passover  was  accordingly  a  feast  of  joy  on  the  salvation  and 
redemption  of  the  children  of  Israel  from  the  Egyptian 
bondage.  As,  then,  the  apostles  and  their  disciples  saw 
everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament  types  and  figures  of  the 
New  Testament,  so  it  was  natural,  in  the  place  of  the  ancient 
festival  of  redemption,  to  keep  a  New  Testament  festival  of 
redemption  from  the  power  of  Satan,  and  to  see  in  the  Jewish 
Paschal  lamb  a  type  of  the  Lamb  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
had  been  slain  almost  at  the  same  time  with  the  old.  Paul 
had  already  designated  the  crucified  Saviour  as  TO  irdvya 
rjfjL&v  (1  Cor.  v.  7),  and  both  contending  parties  in  the  second 
century,  the  Quartodecimans  and  their  opponents,  declare 
with  one  accord  that  the  apostles  had  introduced  the  Christian 
Passover. 

A  difference  among  the  Christians  in  regard  to  the  Paschal 
festival  meets  us  for  the  first  time  immediately  after  the  middle 
of  the  second  century.  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24)  relates, 
from  a  letter  of  S.  Irenseus  to  Bishop  Victor  of  Kome,  the 
following :  "  When  the  blessed  Polycarp  (bishop  of  Smyrna) 
came  to  Home  in  the  time  of  Anicetus  (Anicetus  was  bishop 

1  Further,  on  this  subject  in  Schiirer,  I.e.  p.  34  sqq.,  who  shows  from  a 
hitherto  unregarded  fragment  of  Eusebius  from  his  book  on  Easter  (A.  Mai, 
Nova,  PP.  Bibl.  t.  iv.  p.  209-16),  and  also  from  Athanasius,  that  they  opposed 
the  Johannean  Quartodecimans,  at  the  time  of  the  Nicene  Council,  when 
certainly  there  were  no  more  Ebionite  Quartodecimans,  with  the  same 
arguments  as  Apollinaris  in  the  second  century  the  alleged  Ebionites. 


APPENDIX.  421 

of  Eome  from  157  to  168,  or  from  155  to  166),  and  they 
had  a  slight  dispute  about  some  other  things  (Trep\  a\\wv 
TIV&V),  they  immediately  came  to  an  understanding.  On 
account  of  this  point,  however  (the  Easter  festival),  they  con 
tended  a  little.  Anicetus  could  not  move  Polycarp  no  longer 
to  observe  that  (//.?)  Tijpeiv)  which  he  had  always  observed  in 
fellowship  with  John,  the  disciple  of  the  Lord,  and  with  the 
rest  of  the  apostles  with  whom  he  had  intercourse.  But 
Polycarp  was  also  unable  to  move  Anicetus  to  observe  (rripelv 
is  terminus  technicus  of  the  observance  of  Old  Testament  pre 
scriptions,  cf.  S.  John  ix.  16),  as  the  latter  declared  that  he 
was  bound  to  hold  fast  the  custom  of  his  predecessors. 
Finally,  they  maintained  communion  with  one  another,  and 
Anicetus,  out  of  respect  for  him,  allowed  Polycarp  (to  cele 
brate)  the  Eucharist  (in  the  church),  and  they  departed  from 
one  another  in  peace.  Both  the  rrjpovvTes  and  the  fjbrj 
rrjpovvres  had  perfect  ecclesiastical  peace." 

From  this  fragment  we  do  not  learn  the  exact  nature  of 
the  difference,  but  only  two  points  :  (a)  That  Polycarp  referred 
his  Easter  practice  to  John  and  other  apostles,  Anicetus  his 
to  his  predecessors ;  and  (b)  That  the  so-called  Johannean 
practice  was  observed  (rrjpelv)  in  accordance  with  an  Old 
Testament  command. 

A  few  years  later,  more  violent  controversies  arose,  so 
that  Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis  (in  Asia  Minor),  found  it 
necessary  to  write  two  books  Trepl  rov  irda-^a  (about  the  year 
170).  In  a  fragment  of  this,  preserved  by  Eusebius  (Hist. 
Eccl.  iv.  26),  Melito  says:  "When  Servilius  Paulus  was  Pro 
consul  of  Asia,  and  Bishop  Sagaris  (of  Laodicea)  was  martyred, 
a  violent  controversy  broke  out  respecting  Easter,  which 
festival  was  then  close  at  hand."  But  unfortunately  not  a 
word  is  said  on  the  points  of  the  controversy  and  the  differ 
ences.  Something  more  we  learn  from  Melito's  contemporary 
and  countryman,  Apollinaris  of  Hieropolis,  who  also  wrote  a 
work  on  Easter.  Two  fragments  of  it  are  preserved  in  the 
Chronicon  Paschale.1  There  we  read  :  (1)  "  Those  err  who 
believe  that  the  Lord  ate  the  lamb  on  the  14th  of  Nisan 

1  Chronicon  Paschale,  ed.  Dindorf  (in  the  Bonn  collection  of  the  Byzantines), 
t.  i.  p.  13. 


422  APPENDIX. 

with  His  disciples,  and  that  He  died  on  the  great  day  of 
unleavened  bread  (the  15th  of  Nisan).  They  maintain  that 
Matthew  so  represents  it,  but  their  view  does  not  agree  with 
the  Law,  and  the  Gospels  would  then  contradict  one  another." 
And  (2)  "  The  14th  of  Msan  is  the  true  Passover  of  the  Lord, 
the  great  sacrifice ;  instead  of  the  Lamb,  there  is  here  the 
Son  of  God,"  etc. 

According  to  this,  Apollinaris  opposes  those  Christians  who 
believe  that  the  Lord  partook  of  the  legal  Paschal  lamb  on  the 
1 4th  of  Nisan  ;  for  on  this  day,  Apollinaris  thinks,  Christ,  the 
new  Paschal  Lamb,  died.  He  made  his  foundation  here  the 
chronology  of  the  Gospel  according  to  S.  John,  which  places  the 
death  of  the  Lord  on  the  14th,  the  Supper  on  the  1 3th  of  Msan. 

Hilgenfeld,  in  his  treatise  Der  Pasckastreit,  maintains 
repeatedly  (e.g.  s.  257)  that  Quartodecimans,  opposed  by 
Apollinaris,  had  appealed,  in  behalf  of  their  practice,  not  only 
to  Matthew,  but  also  to  the  old  Law ;  but  it  was  not  they  who 
did  this,  but  Apollinaris  himself.  He  says :  "  Their  opinion 
did  not  agree  with  the  old  Law."  How  Apollinaris  himself 
had  brought  his  practice  into  harmony  with  the  old  Law  is  not 
said  ;  it  appears  to  me,  however,  he  argued  thus  :  "  According 
to  the  old  Law  the  Paschal  lamb  had  to  be  slain  on  the  14th 
of  Nisan ;  as,  however,  the  Old  Testament  is  a  type  of  the 
New,  it  is  necessary  that  the  new  Paschal  Lamb  should  be 
slain  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,"  i.e.  Christ  was  already  dead 
when  the  time  of  the  Paschal  Supper  began,  and  that  which 
He  partook  of  with  His  disciples  before  His  death  was  not 
the  Paschal  Supper.  Apollinaris  further  maintains  that  his 
manner  of  Easter  brings  in  harmony  among  the  Evangelists, 
and  thus  he  is  the  predecessor  of  those  theologians  who 
endeavour  to  bring  the  chronology  of  the  Synoptics  into  agree 
ment  with  that  of  John.1 

Further,  from  these  fragments  of  Apollinaris  it  does  not 
come  out  once  with  certainty  whether  he  or  his  opponents, 
or  whether  both,  were  Quartodecimans,  i.e.  whether  he  or  they, 
or  both,  kept  the  day  of  the  week,  or  the  day  of  the  month,  and 
celebrated,  in  the  first  case,  the  day  of  the  death  always  on  a 
Friday,  the  day  of  the  resurrection  always  on  a  Sunday,  or, 
1  As,  e.g.,  Dr.  v.  Aberle,  in  the  Tiibin.  Theol.  Quartalschrift,  1863,  Heft  iv. 


APPENDIX.  423 

in  the  other  case  (like  the  Quartodecimans),  always  kept  the 
day  of  the  month  (the  14th  of  Nisan)  upon  whatever  day  of 
the  week  it  fell.  We  might,  indeed,  conclude  from  the 
second  fragment  of  Apollinaris,  "  The  1 4th  of  Nisan  is  the 
true  Passover,"  that  he  always  celebrated  the  day  of  the  death 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  without  regard  to  the  day  of  the  week, 
and  thus  in  the  manner  of  the  Quartodecimans.  But  we 
must  not  lay  any  weight  upon  this,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
who  was  undoubtedly  an  opponent  of  the  Quartodecimans, 
made  use  of  the  same  expressions  as  Apollinaris.  In  answer 
to  Melito,  indeed,  against  him,  Clement  wrote  his  ^0709  irepl 
rov  7rdo"xa,  and  the  Chronicon  Paschale  (I.e.  p.  14)  has  also 
preserved  us  fragments  of  this.  In  the  first  it  is  said : 
"  Christ,  in  His  earlier  years,  always  partook  of  the  Passover 
with  His  disciples,  but  no  longer  in  His  last  year,  when  He 
was  Himself  the  Lamb  slain  on  the  cross."  The  second  frag 
ment  says :  "  Christ  died  on  the  1 4th  day  of  Nisan,  and  after 
His  death,  on  the  evening  of  the  same  day,  the  Jews  held 
their  Passover  supper." 

In  like  manner,  the  Quartodecimans  are  opposed  by 
Hippolytus,  the  learned  Roman  priest  (and  temporary  anti- 
pope  x),  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  century,  and  our  Church 
historian,  Eusebius,  at  the  beginning  of  the  fourth  century. 
The  latter  principally  repeats,  in  the  fragment  published  by  A. 
Mai, from  his  treatise  on  Easter  (see  p.  4 20, note),  the  arguments 
of  Clement  of  Alexandria;2  but  Hippolytus  writes:  "He  (the 
opponent)  says,  Christ  on  that  day  (14th  of  Nisan)  celebrated 
the  Passover  and  suffered  (eTroirjo-e  TO  Traer^a  o  Xpio-ros  TOTC 
rfj  r)[J>epa  Kal  eTradev) ; 3  therefore  I  must  do  as  Christ  did 
(i.e.  hold  the  Paschal  festival  on  the  14th  of  Nisan).  He  errs, 
however,  not  knowing  that  Christ  then,  when  He  suffered, 
partook  of  the  Passover  no  longer  in  accordance  with  the  Law  ; 
for  He  was  then  Himself  the  Passover  which  was  announced 
beforehand,  and  came  to  fulfilment  on  the  appointed  day." 

1  [So  Dollinger,  in  his  Hippolytus  and  Callistus  ;  but  on  the  other  side  see 
the  treatise  of  the  late  Dr.  C.  Wordsworth,  bishop  of  Lincoln.] 

2  In  Schurer,  I.e.  p.  40  sq. 

3  In  his  first  fragment,  from  his  treatise  ?rp6s  ctTrdcras  cu/^trets,  preserved  in 
Chronicon  Paschale,  ed.  Dindorf,  t.  i.  p.  12. 


424  APPENDIX. 

In  the  second  fragment  from  the  treatise  irepl  rov  dylou 
Tracr^a,  Hippolytus  writes  :  "  As  Christ  (S.  Luke  xxii.  16)  said 
beforehand,  '  I  will  not  again  eat  of  this  Passover,'  He  cer 
tainly  held  the  SelTrvov  (Supper)  before  the  Passover  (as  S. 
John  xiii.  1  relates) ;  but  the  Passover  He  did  not  eat  again, 
but  died ;  it  was  not  yet  the  time  to  eat  it."  Still  more 
clearly  speaks  Hippolytus  in  the  Philosophoumena  (formerly 
attributed  to  Origen) :  "  Others,  contentiously  or  ignorantly, 
demand  that  the  Easter  festival  must  be  held  on  the  14th 
day  of  the  first  month,  in  accordance  with  the  require 
ment  of  the  (ancient)  Law,  upon  whatever  day  it  may  fall, 
anxiously  scrutinising  the  passage  of  the  Law  which  says, 
'  Cursed  is  he  that  confirmeth  not  all  the  words  of  this  law  to 
do  them'  (Deut.  xxvii.  26)."]  Hence  it  results  that  Hippo 
lytus,  like  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Apollinaris,  maintains 
that  Christ,  in  the  week  of  His  suffering,  did  not  partake  of 
the  Passover  supper,  but  kept  the  Lord's  Supper  before  it 
was  time  for  the  Passover ;  and  that  He  died  at  the  time  of 
the  (Jewish)  Paschal  lamb.  He  thus  opposes  those  who 
thought  that  the  Christian  must  still  do  as  the  Lord  had  done, 
keep  Easter  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  on  whatever  day  of  the  week 
it  might  fall.  With  the  latter  point  he  indicated  a  chief 
peculiarity  of  the  Quartodecimans.  In  the  Easter  controversy 
between  Pope  Victor  and  the  churches  of  Asia  Minor  this 
comes  out  in  full  clearness.  Pope  Victor  wished  no  longer 
to  tolerate  the  Quartodeciman  practice,  and  therefore,  accord 
ing  to  the  chronicle  of  Jerome,  wrote  (A.D.  196)  to  the  leading 
bishops  of  all  countries,  asking  them  to  assemble  Synods  in 
their  provinces,  and  by  means  of  these  introduce  the  Western 
Easter  custom.  In  some  letters,  e.g.  to  Polycrates  of  Ephesus, 
there  were  also  threats  contained,  in  case  of  their  refusal 
(see  p.  426).  Eusebius  (Hist.  JEccl.  v.  23)  relates  on  this  as 
follows :  "  At  that  time  (he  had  in  the  previous  chapters 
spoken  of  Pope  Victor,  of  Polycrates  of  Ephesus,  and  other 
famous  bishops  towards  the  end  of  the  second  century)  there 
arose  a  violent  controversy,  because  all  the  Asiatic  churches, 
in  accordance  with  ancient  tradition,  thought  themselves 
bound  to  celebrate  the  saving  festival  of  Easter  on  the  14th 
1  Philosoph.  lib.  viii.  c.  18. 


APPENDIX.  425 

day  of  the  Moon  (14th  of  Nisan),  on  which  day  the  Jews 
were  commanded  to  slay  the  lamb ;  and  on  this  day,  on 
whatever  day  of  the  week  it  might  fall,  they  thought  that 
the  fast  should  cease ;  whilst  the  whole  of  the  rest  of  the 
Church,  according  to  apostolic  tradition,  kept  another  custom, 
which  still  prevails,  that  the  fast  should  not  come  to  an  end 
on  any  other  day  but  on  that  of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord. 
Therefore  Synods  and  assemblies  of  bishops  were  held,  and  all 
unanimously  passed  the  ecclesiastical  law,  that  the  mystery 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord  from  the  dead  should  be 
celebrated  and  the  Lenten  fast  should  end  on  no  other  day 
than  on  Sunday.  We  still  possess  the  letter  of  the  bishops 
assembled  in  Palestine,  at  the  head  of  whom  stood  Theophilus 
of  Csesarea  in  Palestine  and  Narcissus  of  Jerusalem.  A 
second  letter,  still  extant,  is  that  of  the  Eornan  Synod,  to 
which  the  name  of  Victor  is  prefixed.  There  are  also  letters 
from  Portus  under  Bishop  Palamas,  and  the  Gallican  churches 
over  which  Irenaeus  presided,  as  well  as  some  from  those  of 
Osrhoene,  and  also  from  Bishop  Bacchyllus  of  Corinth,  and 
many  others,  who  all  presented  the  same  view,  and  gave  the 
same  judgment." 

In  the  following  chapter  (Hist.  Ecd.  v.  24)  Eusebius  pro 
ceeds  thus :  "  Among  the  bishops  of  Asia  (chiefly  Asia  Pro- 
consularis),  who  most  strenuously  defended  the  custom  received 
from  their  forefathers,  stood  forward  Polycrates  (of  Ephesus). 
In  his  letter  to  Victor  and  the  Eoman  Church,  he  explained 
the  tradition  which  had  come  down  to  him :  '  We  celebrate 
the  uncorrupted  day  (rj/nepav  dpaBiovpyrjTov,  from  paftiovpyea) 
=  to  act  thoughtlessly)  without  adding  anything  or  taking 
anything  away.  In  Asia  great  lights  have  died.  .  .  .  Philip, 
one  of  the  twelve  apostles,  who  died  at  Hieropolis,  and  his 
two  daughters,  who  remained  virgins,  also  another  daughter 
of  his,  who  was  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  lies  buried 
in  Ephesus  ;  further,  John,  who  lay  on  the  breast  of  the  Lord, 
was  also  a  priest,  who  bore  a  lamina  (priestly  frontlet),  became 
a  martyr  and  teacher,  and  lies  buried  in  Ephesus ;  also  Poly- 
carp,  Bishop  of  Smyrna  and  martyr ;  further,  Thraseas,  bishop 
of  Eumenia  and  martyr,  who  (now)  rests  at  Smyrna.  Why 
should  I  speak  of  Sagaris,  bishop  and  martyr,  who  died  at 


426  APPENDIX. 

Laodicea  (p.  421),  of  Papirius,  of  Melito  of  Sardis,  the  eunuch? 
.  .  .  They  all  observed  the  day  of  the  14th  of  Nisan  as 
Easter,  according  to  the  Gospel,  altering  nothing,  but  in  all  ways 
following  the  rule  of  the  faith ;  as  I  also,  Polycarp,  the  least 
among  you  all,  in  accordance  with  the  traditions  of  my  kindred, 
whom  I  have  followed  (in  office) ;  for  before  me  there  were 
seven  bishops  of  the  see,  and  I  am  the  eighth.  They  all  have 
ever  celebrated  the  day  (of  Easter)  on  that  day  on  which  the 
people  (of  Israel)  put  away  the  leaven.  I  now,  my  brethren, 
who  already  reckon  sixty-five  years  in  the  Lord,  and  have 
had  intercourse  with  the  brethren  in  all  the  world,  and  have 
read  through  the  whole  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  I  shall  not 
be  intimidated  by  threats.  For  those  who  are  much  more  than 
I  have  said,  "  We  ought  to  obey  God  rather  than  man  "  (Acts 
v.  29).  I  would  mention  to  you  the  bishops  whom,  in 
accordance  with  your  wish,  I  have  called  together.  If  I 
should  add  their  names,  it  would  make  a  very  great  number. 
They  have  given  their  assent  to  (this)  my  letter,  knowing 
that  I  do  not  bear  these  grey  hairs  in  vain,  but  always  order 
my  conduct  according  to  the  Lord  Jesus/  " 

On  this,  Victor  proposed,  as  Eusebius  further  relates,  to 
shut  out  from  communion  with  him  the  bishops  of  all  Asia 
(Asia  Proconsularis)  and  the  neighbourhood,  and  with  this 
view  sent  forth  many  letters ;  but  this  was  not  pleasing  to  all 
the  bishops,  and  several  entreated  him  to  be  more  peacefully 
disposed.  Such  letters  still  existed,  Eusebius  says,  and  he 
gives  a  large  extract  from  the  (now  lost)  letter  of  Irenseus  to 
Victor,  which  forms  for  us  a  principal  source  in  reference  to 
the  Paschal  controversy.  Eusebius  says  :  "  Among  them  (the 
bishops  who  warned  Victor)  Irenseus,  in  the  letter  which  he 
wrote  in  the  name  of  his  brethren  in  Gaul,  whose  president 
he  was,  defended  the  view  that  the  mystery  of  the  resurrec 
tion  of  the  Lord  should  be  celebrated  only  on  Sunday,  but 
admonished  Victor,  in  a  suitable  manner,  not  to  exclude  from 
communion  whole  churches  who  only  followed  an  ancient 
tradition."  Among  other  things  he  says  :  "  The  controversy 
refers  not  merely  to  the  day  (of  the  Easter  festival)  but 
also  to  the  way  and  manner  of  fasting.  Some  think  that  it 
is  obligatory  to  fast  only  on  one  day,  others  two  days,  and  again 


APPENDIX.  427 


others  several  days  ;  some  again,  reacrapaKovra  cu/oa?  ri 
re  real  WKT€pivas  avfjUfAerpovo-i  rrjv  rjiiepav  avrwv.1  And  this 
difference  of  those  observing  (rwv  eTriTijpovvTwv,  sc.  their 
difference  from  the  non-observing)  does  not  arise  for  the  first 
time  in  these  days,  but  from  a  much  earlier  time,  in  conse 
quence  of  the  want  of  foresight  and  the  defective  insight  of 
many  rulers.2  Nevertheless,  they  kept  the  peace  among  them 
selves,  and  also  we  kept  the  peace.  Difference  in  fasting 
goes  along  with  unity  in  faith.  .  .  .  The  priests  (Eoman 
bishops),  who  ruled  your  Church  before  Soter  (about  the  year 
170),  I  mean  Anicetus,  Pius,  Hyginus,  Telesphorus,  and 
Xystus,  have  neither  themselves  observed  (the  day  prescribed 
in  the  Old  Testament),  nor  have  allowed  such  observance  to 
their  adherents.  But  although  not  observing,  they  have 
yet  kept  the  peace  with  those  who  came  to  them  from 
observing  (Quartodeciman)  dioceses  .  .  .  and  have  never 
excluded  them  from  communion.  Nay  more,  these  non- 
observing  priests  before  you  sent  the  Eucharist  to  those 
who  belonged  to  observing  dioceses.  When  the  blessed 


1  What  these  words  mean  is  doubtful.     If  we  put  a  comma  after 

the  meaning  will  be:  "Others  fasted  forty  days,  taking  the  hours  of  the  day 
and  the  night  together,"  i.e.  they  fast  day  and  night  in  the  same  way.  So  our 
passage  was  understood  by  Massuet,  in  the  Second  Dissertation  to  his  edition  of 
the  works  of  S.  Irenseus  (art.  i.  sees.  23-28).  But  if  no  comma  is  placed  after 
Te<r<rapdKovTa,  the  sense  is  :  "  Others  reckon  forty  hours  of  day  and  night  (perhaps 
Good  Friday  and  sixteen  hours  of  the  Saturday)  together  for  their  Fast  day  "  ; 
and  this  interpretation  was  defended  particularly  by  Valesius  (in  his  note  to 
Eusebius'  Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24).  This  was  accepted  also  by  the  recently  departed, 
learned  German  Benedictine,  Dr.  Nickes  of  S.  Paul,  in  Rome  (Schemer's 
Zeitschrift,  Wien,  Bd.  viii.  Heft  i.  s.  54),  by  Hilgenfeld  (Paschastreit,  s.  308), 
and  Schurer  (De  controv.  Pa*ch.,  1869,  p.  66),  in  the  sense:  "  Some  have  a 
Fast  day  of  forty  hours  by  the  supcrpositio,  since  they  lengthen  out  the  Fast 
from  Friday  to  Saturday."  Dr.  Nolte,  again,  assumes  a  slip  of  the  pen  in  the 
text  of  Irenseus,  and  supposes  that  he  had  originally  said:  ol  d£  K5'(  =  24) 
upas  K.T.X.,  i.e.  "  Some  fast  not  merely  (like  those  above)  a  day  (when  the  Fast 
then  ended  at  night),  but  full  twenty-four  hours  long  "  (see  Schemer's  Zeitschr. 
Wien,  Bd.  vi.  Heft  i.  s.  119).  This  would  certainly  give  a  quite  good  sense  ; 
as,  however,  a  change  in  the  text  is  always  a  little  violent,  I  think  we  should 
give  the  preference  to  the  interpretation  of  Valerius  and  others. 

2  Massuet  translates  KparoijvTwv  not  by  "rulers,"  but  as  meaning   "hold 
fast";  thus,   "which  predecessors  did  not  hold  the  matter  carefully  enough." 
Cf.  IrenjEUs,  Opp.  ed.  Massuet,  t.  i.  p.  340,  note  x.  ;  and  t.  ii.  Diss.  ii.  s.  27, 
p.  76  (ed.  Veneta). 


428  APPENDIX. 

Polycarp  came  in  the  time   of  Anicetus   to   Borne,"   etc.,  as 
above,  p.  420  f. 

From  the  same  Irenseus  we  possess  a  fuller  utterance  in 
regard  to  the  Eastern  controversy,  in  the  third  of  the  frag 
ments  discovered  by  Pfaff.1  Here  Irenaeus  says :  "  The 
apostles  ordained  that  no  man  should  be  judged  in  meat,  or 
in  drink,  or  in  respect  of  a  holy  day,  or  of  the  new  moon,  or 
of  the  Sabbath  day  (Col.  ii.  16.)  Whence  now  these  con 
flicts  ?  Whence  these  schisms  ?  We  keep  the  feasts,  but  in 
the  leaven  of  wickedness,  since  we  rend  the  Church  of  God, 
and  observe  that  which  is  outward  (TO,  etcros),  in  order  the 
better  to  cast  away  faith  and  love.  That  these  feasts  and 
fasts  are  displeasing  to  the  Lord,  we  have  heard  from  the 
prophets." 

If  from  the  contents  of  these  documents  we  extract  the 
proper  results,  we  find,  first  of  all — 

1.  That  Christian  antiquity  did  not  regard  the  difference, 
for  which  they  contended  in  the  question  about  Easter,  as 
fundamental  and  dogmatic.  It  was  not  here  the  free  Pauline 
Christianity  contending  against  a  half  Judaism,  but  both 
parties  upon  a  purely  Christian  foundation;  with  both,  the 
kernel  and  the  contents  of  the  Paschal  festival  was  thoroughly 
Christian.  They  contended,  as  Irenaeus  said  in  the  fragment 
last  quoted,  for  ra  e'/cro?,  for  the  external,  for  the  time  of 
the  festival.  That  the  difference  of  the  Quartodeciman  or 
Johnannean  Easter  practice  from  the  rest  of  the  world  did 
not  touch  the  faith,  and  was  not  of  fundamental  importance, 
is  further  clear  from  this,  that  (a)  Pope  Anicetus  kept  the 
peace  with  Polycarp  in  spite  of  this  difference,  and  allowed 
him  to  celebrate  the  Eucharist  in  his  church,  which  was  a 
sign  of  the  highest  unity  and  love  ;  also  (&)  that  the  other 
ancient  Popes  admitted  to  divine  service  those  Christians  who 
came  from  Quartodeciman  countries  to  Rome  ;  and  (c)  sent  the 
Eucharist  to  Quartodecimans.  The  same  is  clear  from  the  fact 
(d)  that  Irenseus  blamed  Pope  Victor  for  his  severity  towards 
the  Quartodecimans,  and  added,  that  in  earlier  times  the  two 
parties  had  kept  the  peace  with  one  another,  and  that  so  it 

1  Perhaps  from  his   treatise  against  Blasius,    see   Iren.   Opp.  ed.  Massuet, 
Venet.  1734.     Appendix,  ad.  t.  ii.  p.  35. 


APPENDIX.  429 

was  now  in  Gaul  ("  we  keep  the  peace  ").  In  order  fully  to 
estimate  the  importance  of  these  points,  we  must  remember 
how  violently  and  severely  the  Apostle  John  expressed  him 
self  against  Cerinthus,  and  so  all  the  ancient  teachers  against 
that  doctrinal  apostasy ;  (e)  further,  Apollinaris  and  Hippoly tus 
impute  to  their  opponents  only  "  contention  and  ignorance  " 
(see  above,  p.  422  ff.),  but  in  no  way  dogmatic  error;  (/)  finally, 
the  Synod  of  Aries  (A.D.  314)  and  that  of  Mcsea  (A.D.  325) 
regarded  the  difference  as  not  dogmatic,  as  not  touching  the 
kernel  and  the  dogmatic  significance  of  the  festival ;  and  of 
the  same  view  was  Eusebius  also,  when  in  his  Vita  Constantini 
iii.  5  he  wrote  :  "  In  one  and  the  same  feast  has  the  differ 
ence  of  the  time  (and  so  no  fundamental  or  dogmatic 
difference)  caused  so  great  a  loss  of  unity."  But  we  shall 
have  again  to  speak  more  at  large  on  this  subject  below. 

2.  The  Quartodecimans  are  designated  as  Trjpovvres, 
because  they  observed  practically  a  feast  day  ordered  in 
the  old  Law  (the  14th  of  Nisan),  and  the  author  of  the 
Philosophoumena  states  that  the  painful  regard  to  the  words 
of  the  Old  Testament,  "Cursed  is  he  that  confirmeth  not  all 
the  words  of  this  law  to  do  them,"  was  the  occasion  of  their 
keeping  the  14th  of  Nisan.  But  the  special  ground  by  which 
they  were  induced  to  do  so,  was  not  the  Law,  but  the  Gospel. 
Not  because  they  wished  to  maintain  the  permanent  obliga 
tions  of  the  Law  for  Christians  also  (like  the  Judaisers), 
did  they  keep  the  14th  of  Nisan,  but  because,  on  this  day, 
Christ  had  celebrated  the  Passover.  This  is  said  expressly 
by  Apollinaris  and  Hippolytus ;  and  Eusebius,  too,  in  his 
fragment  on  Easter  (A.  Mai,  see  above,  p.  420),  acknowledges 
that  they  had  appealed  to  the  example  of  Christ.  He 
replied  to  them  that  "  there  was  no  legislation  in  a  fast." 
Further,  Polycrates  also  says  quite  definitely  :  "  They  cele 
brate  the  14th  of  Nisan  as  Passover  according  to  the  Gospel" 
Had  they  regarded  the  Law  as  laying  down  a  rule,  then  from 
the  law-ordained  Paschal  period  they  would  not  have  held 
merely  a  single  day.  That  several  opponents  should  so 
represent  the  matter  as  though  merely  or  chiefly  the  regard 
for  the  legislation  of  the  Old  Testament  had  been  the  guide 
of  the  Quartodecimans,  was  an  obvious  remark.  Appearance 


430  APPENDIX. 

was  in  favour  of  it,  and  opponents  are  usually  painted  as 
black  as  possible. 

3.  But  what  festivals  did  they  celebrate  on  the  14th  of 
Nisan  ?    Certainly  not  the  slaying  and  eating  of  the  lamb.  Even 
with  the  Jews  the  Paschal  lambs  were  allowed  to  be  eaten  only 
in  Jerusalem,  and  since  the  destruction  of  this  city  the  Paschal 
lambs  of  necessity  fell  quite  out  of  use.      But  apart  from  this, 
the  Quartodecimans  held  a  New  Testament  festival  on  the 
day  appointed  in  the  Old  Testament.      None  of  their  oppo 
nents  brings  the  reproach  that  their  festival  is  also  Jewish ; 
on  the  contrary,  they  always  opposed  and  blamed  them  on 
account  of  the  day.     As,  however,  the  Passover  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  a  feast  of  joy  on  account  of  the  deliverance 
from  Egypt,  so  was  also  the  New  Testament  feast  (for  the 
Quartodecimans,  as  for  their  opponents)  the  festival  of  redemp 
tion.      The  difference  was  only  this,  that  the  Quartodecimans 
celebrated  the  festival  of  redemption  (Pascha  =  transitus)  on 
the  day  on  which  Christ,  in  their  opinion,  ate  the  Paschal 
supper,  and  began    His    sufferings,    whilst    their    opponents 
celebrated  the  festival  of  redemption  on  the  day  on  which 
His  sufferings  ended  by  the  resurrection.      But  even  they  (the 
opponents  of  the  Quartodecimans)  did  not  regard  it  as  quite 
a  festival  of  resurrection,  but   as   a  festival  of  redemption, 
and  only  the  latter  and  not  the  former  had  the  name  of  Pass 
over.1     Beyond  all  doubt,  moreover,  the  Quartodecimans  and 
their  opponents  alike  began  Easter  in  this  way,  they  both 
had,  on  their  festal  day,  solemn  Agape  and  communion. 

4.  It  is  generally  asserted  that  the  Quartodecimans  had, 
at  their  Easter,  celebrated  only  the  memorial  of  the  institution 
of  the  Lord's  Supper.2     This  seems  to  me  to  be  incorrect. 
The    Lord    had    already,  at    the   institution    of  the  Supper, 
brought  that  into  closest  connection  with  His  death  ("  This  is 
My  Blood  which  is  shed  for  many,  for  the  remission  of  sins," 
S.  Matt.  xxvi.  28);  and  expressly  ordained:  "As  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread,  etc.,  ye  do  shew  the  Lord's  death  until  He 
come"  (1  Cor.  xi.  26.)     In  accordance  with  the  will  of  the 
Lord,  the  faithful,  in  fact,  from   the  earliest  time,  in  every 
Eucharistic  celebration,  at  the  same  time  also  celebrated  the 

J  Schiirer,  I.e.  p.  28  sqq.  and  pp.  60-66.  2Schlirer,  I.e.  p.  59  sqq. 


APPENDIX.  431 

death  of  the  Lord,  and  the  Quartodecimans  made  certainly 
here  no  unchristian  exception.  No  one  has  ever  brought 
such  an  accusation  against  them.  And  how  could  they  have 
made  such  an  exception,  since  they  celebrated  Easter  as  a 
festival  of  redemption  ?  Could  the  Christian  think  of  redemp 
tion  without  thinking  of  the  death  of  our  Lord  ?  Add  to  this 
that  the  Quartodecimans  had  only  one  feast  day  for  Easter,  as 
Poly  crates  says,  and  so  were  specially  constrained,  on  this  one 
feast  day,  also  to  commemorate  the  great  act  of  salvation,  of 
our  redemption  by  the  death  of  Christ.  Our  supposition  that 
they  also  celebrated  the  death  of  Christ  on  the  14th  of  Nisan  is 
confirmed  by  Hippolytus  and  Theodoret.  The  former  lets 
the  Quartodeciman  speak  :  eiroLrjcre  TO  irdcr^a  6  XpiaTos  rore 
rfj  r]^pa  KOL  eTraOev.  Theodoret  says  of  the  Quartodecimans, 
that  they  celebrate  their  Easter  on  any  day  of  the  week,  as  it 
may  happen,  and  Travyyvp  trover  i  rov  iraQovs  TTJV  /jLvij/jUjv.1 

5.  In  distinction  from  the  Quartodecimans,  the  rest  of 
the  Christians,  the  great  majority,  celebrated  the  feast  of 
redemption  (Easter)  always  on  a  Sunday  (the  next  Sunday 
after  the  iS')  because  Christ  rose  on  the  Sunday,  and  thereby 
placed  the  crown  on  His  work  of  redemption.  But  along  with 
this  chief-day  (with  the  solemn  Easter  Agape),  they  celebrated 
the  death  of  Christ  on  the  preceding  Friday,  and  called  also 
this  day  Easter  (Trdo-^a).  Tertullian,  so  early  as  about  the 
year  200,  distinguishes  a  double  Paschal  day,  the  dies  paschca, 
quo  communis  est  et  quasi  publica  jejunii  religio,  and  where  we 
merito  deponimus  osculum  (sc.  pacis),  i.e.  Good  Friday  (De 
Orat.  c.  14),  and  the  dies  paschce,  from  which  until  Pentecost 
the  knees  are  no  longer  bent  (De  corona,  c.  3),  i.e.  Easter 
Sunday.  Much  later  these  days  were  designated  as 


6.  As  regards  the  second  principal  point  of  difference, 
the  fasts,  it  is  clear  that  the  Quartodecimans  ended  the  fasts 
on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  on  whatever  day  of  the  week  that 
might  fall,  whilst  the  rest  of  the  Church  did  not  end  the  fast 
until  Sunday,  on  which  day  they  celebrated  the  resurrection 
of  the  Lord.  Eusebius  states  this  quite  expressly  (Hist.  Eccl. 
v.  23).  The  further  differences  in  regard  to  fasts,  of  which 

1  Epiph.  Hseret.  Fab.  Compcnd.  iii.  4. 


432  APPENDIX. 

Irenseus  speaks  (see  p.  426),  are,  for  our  question,  of  no 
great  importance ;  but  it  is  probable  that  he  understood  the 
Quartodecimans  to  be  among  those  who  fasted  only  one 
day.  This  difference  in  fasting  may  be  explained  by  the 
fact  that  the  Quartodecimans  finished  all  in  one  day,  and  then 
at  the  end  of  this  Paschal  day,  as  they  did  not  celebrate  a 
special  day  of  the  death,  nor  a  special  festival  of  the  resurrec 
tion,  had  no  reason  for  continuing  the  fast,  while  the  rest  of 
the  Church,  following  the  natural  feeling  of  sorrow,  fasted  as 
long  as  the  Sponsus  ablatus  erat,1  i.e.  until  the  celebration  of 
the  resurrection. 

7.  The  Quartodecimans  referred    their    practice    to   the 
Evangelist    John    and    the    Apostle   Philip.     Whether    this 
claim  was  well  founded  can  no  longer  be  determined.     The 
practice  was  certainly  of  great  antiquity ;  whilst  it  must  be 
conceded   that   that   w^hich    Polycrates   says   of  the   Apostle 
Philip  and  of   John  (that   he   wore    the   lamina,  etc.)  has  a 
legendary   sound.      The    so-called   Tubingen    School    accepts 
very  readily  this  statement  of  the  Johannean  origin  of  the 
Quartodeciman  practice,  and  the  "  critical  school "  has  here  no 
critical  doubts,  because   in   that   statement   they  think  they 
have  discovered  a  strong  argument  against  the  genuineness 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel.      The  Quartodecimans,  so   they  argue, 
maintain  that  Christ  held  the  Passover  on  the  14th  of  Msan, 
and  that  He  died  on  the  15th  of  Nisan  (see  above,  p.  421), 
but  the  Fourth  Gospel  says  that  Christ  died  on  the  14th  (not 
the  15th  of  Nisan).     As   the   Quartodecimans  represent  the 
genuine  Johannean  chronology,  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  its 
contradictory  chronology  cannot  be  Johannean.      It  is  not  our 
business  to  enter  upon  this  great  question ;  for  us  it  suffices 
to  have  drawn  attention  to  the  legendary  character  of  the 
statement    of    Polycrates,   and    to   ask   whether   the   critical 
school    accepts    as    credulously    the  statement   of   the   anti- 
quartodecimans,   that   their  Easter  practice   came  from    the 
Apostle  Peter  (see  below,  No.  9),  that  is,  the  free  Christian 
practice  from  the  head  of  the  unfree  Judaising  tendency  of 
the  Trjpovvres. 

8.  The  home  of  the  Quartodeciman  practice,  as  Eusebius 

1  Tertull.  De  Jejun.  c.  2. 


APPENDIX.  433 

(Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24)  says,  was  Asia,  i.e.  Asia  Proconsularis  ;  but 
he  adds,  "  and  the  neighbouring  provinces,"  and  in  fact  we 
find  them  also  in  Cilicia,  Mesopotamia,  and  Syria,  as 
Athanasius  testifies ; l  yet  this  cannot  refer  to  the  whole 
of  Cilicia,  for  the  Emperor  Constantine  (Vit.  Const,  iii.  19) 
says  that  Cilicia  followed  the  Western  practice. 

9.  By  far  the  greater  part  of  Christendom  was  in  opposi 
tion  to  the  Quartodecimans,  and  always  celebrated  the  great 
festival  of  Easter  on  Sunday.  According  to  Eusebius  (v.  23), 
the  latter  practice  was  observed  by  all  the  other  churches  in 
the  whole  world,  with  the  exception  of  the  Asiatics.  In 
particular,  he  refers  to  Palestine,  Borne,  Pontus,  Gaul, 
Osrhoene,  Corinth,  Phoenicia,  and  Alexandria ;  the  Emperor 
Constantine  the  Great,  however,  asserts  that  "  all  the  churches 
in  the  West,  Sweden,  and  Norway,  had  this  practice,  par 
ticularly  Eome,  all  Italy,  Africa,  Egypt,  Spain,  Gaul, 
Britain,  Lybia,  all  Achaia  (Greece) ;  even  in  the  diocese  of 
Asia  and  Pontus  and  in  Cilicia  it  existed.2  From  this  it 
results  that  it  is  not  quite  exact  to  speak  of  this  practice  as 
Western ;  it  would  more  correctly  be  described  as  communis. 
According  to  Socrates  (Hist.  Ecd.  v.  22),  it  was  referred  to  the 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul ;  and  even  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.  v.  23) 
says  that  it  was  derived  ef  aTrocrroXtyc?}?  TropaSotrea)?. 
Irenseus,  on  the  contrary,  as  we  saw  (p.  428),  adduces  only 
the  Popes  of  the  beginning  of  the  second  century  as  its 
defenders. 

If  we  hold  by  these  results,  we  are  now  in  a  position  to 
understand  exactly  what  Eusebius,  in  his  Vit.  Const,  iii. 
5,  says  on  the  Paschal  controversy:  "Some  maintained  that 
we  ought  to  follow  the  Jewish  custom  (i.e.  observe  Easter 
always  on  the  14th  of  Nisan,  without  regard  to  the  day 
of  the  week).  Others  wish  to  have  the  hour  of  the  time 
accurately  observed,  i.e.  they  wish  to  celebrate  all  the  moments 
in  the  work  of  redemption  :  Death,  rest  in  the  grave,  resurrec 
tion,  accurately  at  the  hour — and  on  the  day  of  the  week — 
when  they  actually  took  place.  As  in  this  way  the  peoples 
were  long  and  widely  in  doubt,  since  at  one  and  the  same 

1  Athanas.  Ep.  ad  Afros,  c.  2.  t.  i.  P.  ii.  p.  713,  ed.  Patav.  1777. 

2  Euseb.  Vit.  Const,  iii.  19. 
V.  — 28 


434  APPENDIX. 

festival  the  difference  of  the  time  (thus  no  fundamental  or 
doctrinal  difference)  caused  the  greatest  want  of  uniformity, 
since  the  one  were  fasting  and  mourning  whilst  the  others 
were  giving  themselves  up  to  rest  and  joy  (i.e.  the  Quarto- 
decimans  had  ended  their  fast  on  the  i$' ;  whilst  the  rest  of 
the  Christians  were  fasting  and  mourning  up  to  the  coming 
Sunday),  so  that  no  one  could  bring  help  out  of  this  evil. 
Only  God  and  the  Emperor  Constantine  could  do  so,"  adds 
the  courtier. 

In  our  previous  investigations  we  have  learnt  to  know 
the  Synods  which  were  held  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century  on  account  of  the  Easter  controversies : — 

(a)  Those  in  Palestine  under  Theophilus  of  Csesarea  and 
Narcissus  of  Jerusalem. 

(5)  The  Eoman  Synod  under  Pope  Victor. 

(c)  The  Synod  in  Pontus  under  Bishop  Palmas  of  Amastris. 

(d)  One  or  two  G-allican  Synods  under  Irenseus. 

(e)  The  Synod  in  Osrhoene  in  Mesopotamia. 

(/)  The  Synods  at  Ephesus  under  Polycrates.  The  latter 
Synods  pronounced  in  favour  of  the  Quartodeciman  practice, 
all  the  others  against  it.  See  above,  p.  425  f. 

P.  102.  After  par.  ending  "heretics,"  add:  Certainly 
Cyprian  communicated  this  decree  also,  and  it  was  probably 
now  (not  after  the  second  Carthaginian  Synod  on  this  matter) 
that  the  Pope  showed  that  great  unfriendliness  towards  the 
Africans  to  which  Firmilian  refers,1  refusing  to  receive  their 
envoys,  forbidding  the  faithful  to  receive  them  into  their 
houses,  and  calling  S.  Cyprian  a  false  Christian,  false  apostle, 
and  dolosus  operarius.2 

P.  103.  After  par.  ending  "genuine,"  add:  Eecently 
Archbishop  Tizzani,  Professor  at  Eome,  in  his  treatise,  La 
celebre  contesa  fra  S.  Stefano  e  S.  Cypriano,  Eoma  1862,  has 
trod  in  his  footsteps,  attempting  to  show  that  the  controversy 
between  Pope  Stephen  and  S.  Cyprian  was  not  historical,  and 
that  the  chapter  in  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eusebius,  which 
refers  to  it,  is  interpolated. 

1  In   Cyprian.   Ep.   75,   p.   150,    151.     Cf.  the   Vita  Cypriani,  I.e.  p.  cxii. 
sqq. 

2  Cf.  Schwane,  Dogmengesch.  der  vornican.  Zeit.,  Minister  1862,  S.  735. 


APPENDIX.  435 

P.  112.  A  good  deal  of  what  was  here  contained  in  the 
first  edition  is  omitted  in  the  second.  Sec.  3,  after  the  quota 
tion  from  Cyprian,  and  Sec.  4  appear  in  the  following  form  : 
Vincen tius  Lirinensis  (in  his  Commonitorium,  c.  6)  and 
Augustine  (De  Bapt.  v.  25)  understood  these  words  as  follows  : 
"  No  innovation  has  taken  place,  but  there  is  observed  what  is 
according  to  tradition,  that  the  hand  should  be  laid  upon  him 
for  penance."  Others,  on  the  contrary,  translate :  "  To  the 
convert  there  is  nothing  new,  but  what  is  in  accordance  with 
tradition,  that  the  hand  be  laid  upon  him  for  penance."  l 

Whichever  of  these  two  explanations  we  accept,  which  are 
essentially  the  same,  the  question  still  arises,  what  we  are 
to  understand  by  the  manus  impositio  ad  pcenitentiam.  Some 
scholars,  in  later  times  particularly  Dr.  Mattes,  in  the  treatise 
(Tiib.  Theoloy.  Quartalsclirift)  repeatedly  referred  to,  are  of  the 
view  that  Pope  Stephen  required  the  manus  impositio  both  for 
the  confirmation  of  the  converts  and  for  their  reconciliation 
through  the  sacrament  of  penance  ;  whilst  others,  and  recently 
in  particular  Professor  Dr.  Schwane,  in  Mlinster  (I.e.  S.  755  ff.), 
think  it  can  only  refer  to  a  manus  impositio  in  regard  to  recon 
ciliation.  The  text  is  in  favour  of  the  later  views,  only  we 
must  add  that  to  such  converts,  at  their  coming  over,  the  full 
reception  into  the  Church  (by  the  second  laying  on  of 
hands)  was  not  given  immediately,  but  only  the  first  imposi 
tion  of  hands  for  admission  to  Church  penance.2 

P.  119.  n.  5,  add :  Dittrich,  Dionysius  der  Gr.  v.  Alex. 
1867,  S.  124  ;  Kuhn,  Dogmatik,  Bd.  ii.;  Trinitatslehre,  S.  97. 

P.  124.  n.  1,  add  Kuhn,  I.e.  S.  311  f. 

P.  131.  After  the  paragraph  ending  Biblioth.  Eccles.,  add  : 
A  new  edition,  with  a  Spanish  translation  of  the  canons, 
appeared  at  Madrid  1849,  in  two  quarto  volumes,  with  the 
title,  Coleccion  de  canones  de  la  iglesa  espanola,  etc. 

P.  132,  n.  2,  add :  Cf.  Gams,  Kircheng  v.  Spanien,  Kegens- 
burg  1864,  Bd.  ii.  S.  10  ff. ;  S.  14  ff. 

Cf.  on  this  subject,  Schwane,  Doginengesch.  der  vomicdn  Zeit,,  Miinster 
1862,  S.  741  f.  The  same  author  wrote,  two  years  earlier,  a  dissertation,  De 
controversies  de  valore  baptismi,  etc. 

2  Cf.    Frank,    "Penitential   Discipline"    (Bussdisciplin],    Mainz   1867,    S. 
810. 


436  APPENDIX. 

P.  136.  n.  3,  add:  Gams,  Kircheng  v.  Spanien, Eegensburg 
1862,  Bd.  i.  S.  298  ff. 

P.  137.  n.  2,  add  :  Gams  decides  that  the  Synod  was  held 
in  May  306  (Kircheng.  v.  Spanien,  ii.  8).  The  Martyria  of 
Vincentius  say  expressly  that  the  Prseses,  when  he  gave  orders 
for  the  execution  of  this  the  Levite  of  Bishop  Valerius,  com 
manded  :  "  Put  this  bishop  forth,  for  it  is  right  that  he  should 
endure  banishment  "  (Gams,  I.e.  8,  377). 

P.  138.  Can.  1.     After  idolaturus,  add,  (leg.  idololatraturus). 

P.  138.  Transl.  of  can.:  "If  an  adult  who  has  been 
baptised  has  entered  an  idol's  temple,  in  order  to  sacrifice, 
and  so  has  committed  a  capital  crime,"  etc. 

To  the  comment  on  can.  1 ,  add  :  If  we  had  no  doubt  before, 
that  by  communis  here,  and  in  a  hundred  other  places,  the 
reception  of  the  holy  supper,  specially  as  viaticum  for  the  dying, 
was  to  be  understood,  we  are  essentially  confirmed  in  this  view 
by  the  investigations  of  Frank  in  his  treatise,  Die  Bussdis- 
ciplin(lSQ7),S.  739,  745,  889,  896-903.  According  to  this 
we  must  distinguish :  (a)  Sacramental  absolution ;  (&)  Kecep- 
tion  of  the  communion ;  and  (c)  Canonical  absolution  (from 
works  of  penance).  The  latter  was  bound  up  with  the  solemn 
receiving  back ;  sacramental  absolution  (from  sins),  on  the 
contrary,  was  refused  to  no  sinner,  and  was  imparted  before 
the  canonical.  One  canon  thus  says :  "  To  such  sinners, 
even  on  their  deathbed,  the  holy  communion  is  not  to  be 
administered " ;  but  that  sacramental  absolution  was  also 
withheld  from  them,  is  nowhere  said. 

After  can.  3,  add  :  Dr.  Nolte  would  amend  :  Lusisse  de  dom. 
comm.  or  illusisse  dominicce  communioni,  and  above,  prcestari 
instead  of  prcestare  (Tub.  Qu.  Schrift,  1865,  S.  309  and 
312). 

P.  141.  Can.  8.  "  Some  interpreters,"  add  :  cf.  Aubespine 
in  Mansi,  I.e.  t.  ii.  p.  38.  Add  at  the  end  of  comment  on 
can.  8  :  So  that  a  Christian  wife  who  leaves  her  Christian 
but  adulterous  husband,  and  marries  another,  should  riot  be 
admitted  to  communion  so  long  as  the  husband  she  has  left 
is  alive.  Only  in  case  of  severe  sickness  she  may  be  treated 
more  indulgently,  and  admitted  to  the  communion. 

Add  to  can.  9  :  Nolte  would  change  dare  into  the  gram- 


APPENDIX.  437 

matically  more  correct  dari.  See  Tub.  Theol.  Quart.,  1865, 
S.  311. 

P.  142.  Add  at  end  of  page :  On  the  views  of  the 
Fathers  with  respect  to  divorce,  etc.,  cf.  the  notes  of  Cotelier 
on  Pastor  Hermw,  lib.  ii.  Mandatum  ii.  [in  his  edition  of  the 
Patres  Apostolici], 

P.  143.  In  can.  13,  1.  2,  after  libidini,  add  (sc.  carnis,  de 
qua  supra). 

P.  144.  After  can.  15,  add:  Marriages  between  heathen 
men  and  Christian  girls  were  very  frequent  in  antiquity,  es 
pecially  (1)  because  of  the  greater  number  of  Christian  women 
than  Christian  men,  and  (2)  in  such  mixed  marriages  the  man, 
who  was  generally  indifferent,  did  not  hinder  his  wife  from 
the  exercise  of  her  faith,  and  also  left  to  her  the  religious 
education  of  the  children.  Our  Synod  therefore  certainly 
disapproved  such  marriages,  but  imposed  no  penance  upon 
them  (cf.  Gams,  Lc.  S.  60  ff.). 

After  can.  16  :  The  Synod  is  much  more  strict  in  regard 
to  the  marriages  with  heretics  and  Jews  than  in  regard  to 
those  with  heathen.  Heretics  and  Jews  were  not  so  in 
different  as  heathens,  and  not  so  yielding  in  the  education  of 
the  children.  Here  there  was  much  greater  danger.  The 
words  neque  hcereticos  appear  superfluous,  as  the  reference, 
from  the  beginning  of  the  canon,  was  to  heretics. 

After  can.  17,  add :  The  wife  of  a  heathen  priest  was 
herself  obliged  to  take  part  in  the  sacrifices ;  hence  the 
greater  stringency.  The  word  forte,  however,  shows  that  such 
cases  seldom  occurred. 

P.  145.  Add  to  comment  on  can.  19  :  Our  Council 
ordains  that  a  Spanish  cleric  should  exercise  his  business 
only  within  the  four  (subsequently  five)  provinces  of  Spain, 
in  which  he  lived ;  and  so  also  not  in  other  parts  of  Spain, 
still  less  in  Italy,  Africa,  etc. 

Can.  20,  add:  cf.  the  author's  essay  in  the  Tubingen 
Quartalschrift,  1841,  S.  405  ff.  (in  the  Beitraye,  etc.,  Bd.  i. 
S.  3 Iff.). 

After  can.  2 1 ,  add :  The  penalty  here  is  a  temporary 
exclusion  from  presence  at  divine  service,  connected  with  the 
withdrawal  of  those  ecclesiastical  rights  which  otherwise 


438  APPENDIX. 

belonged    to    every    member    of   the    Church.       Of.    Kober, 
Deposition,  1867,  S.  59. 

P.  146.  Add  to  comment  on  can.  23  :  So  well  into  the 
night,  till  midnight. 

P.  148.  At  end  of  comment  on  can.  26,  add :  cf.  Gams,  I.e. 
S.  80. 

P.  149.  After  can.  30,  add :  If  anyone  in  his  youth  has 
been  guilty  of  unchastity,  he  may  not  be  a  subdeacon,  because 
he  might  then  easily  slip  into  a  higher  grade.  If  such  an 
one  has  already  been  ordained  (a  subdeacon),  he  must  be 
deposed. 

After  can.  32  remove  the  first  part  of  the  comment  down 
to  "  ancient  Church,"  and  substitute  as  follows  :  "  If  anyone 
through  a  serious  lapse  (into  sin)  has  been  betrayed  into  the 
ruin  of  (spiritual)  death,  he  must  do  penance,  not  with  a 
priest,  but  only  with  a  bishop.  If,  however,  a  sickness 
presses,  the  priest  may  also  administer  the  communion." 

The  meaning  of  this  canon  is  greatly  contested.  Morinus 
pronounced  in  favour  of  the  view  that,  in  cases  of  necessity 
and  with  permission  of  the  bishop,  even  deacons  could  ad 
minister  sacramental  absolution.  He  is  opposed  by  Binterim 
(Katholik,  1821,  Bd.  ii.  S.  432  f.),  who  understood  the  canon 
thus  :  "  In  case  of  necessity  even  a  priest  might  administer 
the  holy  communion,  and  at  his  request  a  deacon  might  assist 
him."  Frank,  on  the  contrary,  in  his  work,  Die  Bussdisciplin 
der  Kirche,  1867,  S.  243—257,  distinguishes  between  sacra 
mental  absolution  (from  sins),  canonical  absolution  (from 
ecclesiastical  penalties),  and  understands  our  canon  thus  :  "  At 
the  command  of  the  bishop,  even  a  deacon  may  administer  to 
the  penitent  (who  is  already  sacramentaliter  absolved)  canonical 
absolution,  together  with  the  holy  Eucharist." 

P.  150.  n.  1,  add  Mansi,  t.  iii.  p.  869. 

P.  151.  n.  I,  add  Gams,  Lc.  S.  85-94. 

After  can.  35,  add:  There  is  no  reference  here  to  the 
vigils  of  the  great  festivals,  and  to  the  vigil  service  in  the 
church.  Participation  in  the  latter  was  not  denied  to 
women.  But  only  men,  and  not  women,  were  allowed  to  hold 
the  night  watches  upon  the  graves  of  the  martyrs. 

After  can.  36,  for  the  comment  in  ed.  i.,  substitute  the 


APPENDIX.  439 

following :  The  only  correct  sense  of  this  canon,  which  has 
been  explained  in  various  ways,  has  recently  been  given  by 
the  celebrated  Roman  archaeologist  Rossi  (Roma  Sotterreana, 
t.  i.  p.  97).  He  starts  from  the  well-known  fact  that  those 
localities  for  Christian  service  which  were  relatively  the  most 
secure  (against  a  visit  or  an  attack  from  the  heathen)  were 
in  early  times  decorated  with  Christian  wall  paintings,  e.g. 
the  Catacombs  at  Rome.  Into  these  subterranean  localities 
the  heathen  could  not  easily  penetrate.  If  a  church  were  in 
the  open  air,  they  had  to  abstain  from  adorning  it  with 
specifically  Christian  pictures,  in  order  that  when  the  heathen 
entered  they  might  not  provoke  derision  or  even  persecution. 
As,  however,  the  places  of  prayer  in  Spain  were  not  now 
subterranean,  and  so  not  so  secure,  our  Spanish  Synod 
ordained  that  on  the  walls  of  these  churches  placed  sub  divo 
no  pictures  of  the  saints  (quod  colitur)  and  no  representations 
of  Christ  (quod  adoratur)  should  be  introduced.  There  is 
no  reference  to  any  generally  hostile  tendencies  against  the 
images,  and  the  many  works  of  this  kind  which  are  known 
from  the  ancient  Spanish  Church,  as  the  very  beautiful 
sarcophagi  of  Saragossa,  prove  that  there  was  no  tendency  in 
Spain  hostile  to  the  images.  Cf.  the  most  recent  studies  on 
the  Roman  Catacombs  by  Count  Desbassayus  de  Richemont, 
Mainz  1872  (S.  7). 

P.  152.  In  comment  on  can.  37,  after  "  light  the  lamps," 
add :  If  they  nevertheless  do  so,  they  shall  be  expelled  from 
the  Church.  Communis,  at  the  end  of  the  canon  =  communion 
with  the  Church.  Even  the  demoniacs  were  in  this,  but  to 
the  holy  communion  they  were  admitted  only  at  the  end  of 
their  life.  (Cf.  Gams,  I.e.  S.  99.) 

To  the  comment  on  can.  38,  add:  From  this  and  other 
passages  Mayer  endeavours,  in  his  work  on  the  Catechumenate, 
etc.  (1868,  S.  185  ff.),  to  prove  that  the  laying  on  of  hands 
alone,  without  the  chrism,  was  the  matter  of  confirmation, 
because  the  chrism  had  been  applied  at  baptism.  This 
view  is  strongly  supported  by  the  second  canon  of  the 
Synod  of  Orange,  A.D.  441  (see  vol.  ii.  sec.  162). 

P.  154.  At  the  end  of  notes  on  can.  39,  add:  I  find 
myself  unable  to  agree  with  this  exposition.  In  can.  38 


440  APPENDIX. 

above,  where  sickness  at  sea  is  considered,  a  catechumen  is 
assumed  ;  but  here,  in  can.  39,  a  heathen,  who  did  not 
hitherto  believe  in  Christ,  and  this  explains  why  he  should 
be  treated  more  severely  than  that  catechumen,  i.e.  should  not 
be  admitted  to  baptism,  but  only  among  the  catechumens  or 
aspirants.  Of.  Nickes,  I.e. 

After  can.  40,  add:  Heathen  farmers  brought  offerings  to 
Pan,  to  Flora,  to  Vertumnus,  etc.,  and  because  the  blessing 
which,  in  their  opinion,  was  hereby  obtained  was  for  the 
benefit  of  the  proprietor,  they  took  into  account  the  expense 
incurred  in  reckoning  with  the  owner,  and  the  owner  accepted 
it  as  part  payment.  Accepto  ferre  has,  in  juristic  Latin  (the 
pandects),  always  the  meaning :  "  Something  regarded  as 
received,  and  consequently  no  longer  to  be  required  of  the 
debtor.  That  is  to  say,"  etc. 

P.  155.  After  comment  on  can.  42,  add :  Nolte  suggests 
that,  instead  of  ad  primam  fidem  credulitatis,  we  should  read, 
ad  primam  fidei  credulitatem  =  "  at  the  beginning  of  the  in 
ward  conviction  of  the  truths  of  the  faith."  At  the  end  of 
the  canon  he  would  read  subveniri  instead  of  subvenire  (Tub. 
theol.  Quart.  1865,  S.  311  f.). 

P.  156.  At  end  of  comment  on  can.  45,  add:  Instead 
of  de  clero  quisque,  Nolte  would  place  the  more  (linguistically) 
accurate  quis,  and,  with  Kouth,  at  the  end  of  the  canon,  he  would 
read,  in  vetere  komine  deliquisse  (Tub.  Quart.  1865,  S.  312). 

P.  157.  At  end  of  comment  on  can.  46,  add:  The 
shortened  idolator  and  idolatria,  instead  of  idololator  and 
idololatria,  frequently  occur  in  Christian  writers.  Cf.  Du 
Cange,  Grlossarium,  s.v.  and  above,  under  can.  1. 

P.  158.  After  comment  on  can.  49,  add :  Cf.  Gams,  I.e. 
S.  108  f. 

P.  159.  Add  to  can.  51 :  A  heretic  is  here  called  fidelis 
=  one  who  believes  in  Christ. 

Add  to  comment  on  can.  53:  Cf.  Gams,  I.e.  S.  Ill; 
Kober,  Kircheribann,  S.  188  and  453. 

P.  161.  In  can.  56,  after  "  Magistratus,"  add  (leg.  magis- 
tratum). 

P.  162.  Add  to  comment  on  can.  58  :  Gams  (Lc.  S.  167  f.) 
explains  this  canon  differently.  He  understands  by  prima 


APPENDIX.  441 

cathedra  episcopatus  the  first  church  of  a  diocese,  i.e.  the 
cathedral,  and  finds  the  following  meaning :  "  Travelling 
Christians  who  bring  letters  of  commendation  shall  every 
where  be  carefully  inquired  of  by  the  priests  at  the  bishop's 
residence,  whether  everything  is  correctly  represented  in 
their  communications,  i.e.  whether  they  had  not  fraudulently 
obtained  the  letters,  and  the  like. 

P.  163.  End  of  comment  on  can.  59,  add:  Dr.  Nolte, 
instead  of  et  videat,  would  read  vel  or  aut  videat ;  and,  at  the 
close  :  Quodsi  fecerit  pari  crimine  teneatur,  ac  si  fuerit  fidelis,  et 
post,  etc.  According  to  this,  we  should  translate  :  "  If  a  cate 
chumen  (Christian)  goes  to  the  capital  as  a  heathen,  in  order 
to  sacrifice,  or  even  only  to  look  on,  he  must,  in  regard  to  his 
offence,  be  placed  with  the  faithful,  but  not,  as  these  (can.  1), 
be  shut  out  all  their  life,  but,  after  ten  years'  penance,  be 
received  back  again."  Tub.  Quartalsckr.  1855,  S.  312  f. 
According  to  this,  the  catechumens  would  be  placed,  in  regard 
to  their  offence,  on  a  level  with  the  baptized,  but  yet  punished 
more  gently. 

P.  168.  After  can.  73,  add:  There  is  here  no  distinction 
made  between  true  and  false  accusation.  Every  accusa 
tion,  which  occasioned  punishments  too  severe,  was  to  be 
punished. 

After  can.  74,  for  the  comment  in  ed.  1,  substitute  the 
following :  Falsus  testis  is  here  the  witness  for  the  accusation. 
He  is  called  falsus,  even  if  he  proves  his  accusation  (et  pro- 
baverit).  Such  a  witness  is  to  be  expelled  in  proportion  to 
the  offence  on  account  of  which  he  testified.  If  the  offence 
is  not  one  which  is  punishable  with  death,  and  if  he  can 
prove  his  accusation,  he  shall  undergo  penance  for  two  years, 
because  he  has  not  kept  silence.  If  he  is  unable  to  prove 
it  before  the  clergy  assembled  at  the  penitential  tribunal 
(conventu  =  qui  convenit,  see  Tub.  Quartalschr.  1865,  S.  313), 
he  shall  undergo  penance  for  five  years.  The  word  probaverit, 
however,  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the  phrase,  prdbare 
alicui  aliquid  =  "  to  make  something  acceptable  to  another," 
or  "  to  bring  it  about,  that  one  is  contented  with  something," 
might  be  taken  to  mean,  "  if  the  offence  to  which  he  testi 
fied  does  not  belong  to  those  upon  which  the  punishment  of 


442  APPENDIX. 

death  is  placed,  and  if  he  could  set  forth  valid  reasons  for 
the  circumstance  that  he  had  not  kept  silence  (e.g.  that 
otherwise  he  would  have  been  killed),"  etc.  Naturally,  in 
this  explanation,  the  ordinary  punctuation  must  be  restored 
to  our  canon,  a  comma  placed  after  objecit  and  tacuerit,  and 
the  one  after  probaverit  struck  out.  Others  would  read  diu 
tacuerit,  for  non  tacuerit,  and  translate :  "If  he  can  prove 
that  he  has  been  long  silent,  and  thus  did  not  give  testimony 
willingly."  But  the  reading  diu  is  not  supported  by  any 
ancient  manuscript.  (See  Gams,  I.e.  S.  133.) 

P.  169.  After  can.  75,  add:  Cf.  can.  14  of  the  Synod  of 
Aries  (A.D.  314). 

P.  172.  In  the  comment  on  can.  81,  after  "on  the  whole 
the  same,"  add :  Gams,  starting  from  the  fact  that  in  Spain 
the  wife  never  takes  the  name  of  her  husband,  translates : 
"  Wives  shall  not  under  their  own  names,  without  the  name 
of  their  husbands,  write  to  women  who  are  believers,  nor 
shall  they  receive  from  anyone  else  the  letters  of  peace 
written  merely  to  their  name." 

P.  174.  n.  1,  add:  Marca,  De  Primatibus,  p.  10  f.  and  p. 
63  sq.,  ed.  Francof.  1708  ;  and  Noris,  Diss  de  synodo  Quinta, 
ed.  Ballerini,  t.  i.  p.  743  sq.  and  p.  755,  and  t.  iv.  p.  1027  sq. 

P.  187.  After  can.  5,  add :  On  the  horror  of  the  ancient 
Christians  in  regard  to  all  scenic  and  pantomimic  per 
formances,  the  author  has  treated  at  greater  length  in  the 
Quartalschrift,  1841,  S.  396  ff.,  and  in  the  Beitrage,  Bd.  i. 
S.  28  ff. 

P.  193.  At  the  end  of  note  on  can.  15,  add:  Cf.  the 
remarks  on  the  18th  canon  of  Nicaea  and  the  discussion  by 
Dr.  Miinchen,  I.e.  S.  76  ff. 

P.  194.  At  the  end  of  comment  on  can.  16,  add:  Kober, 
Kircheiibann,  S.  452. 

P.  196.  After  can.  22,  add:  To  such  sinners  holy  com 
munion  (the  Eucharist)  was  not  to  be  administered,  but  sacra 
mental  absolution,  which  preceded  admission  to  the  Eucharist, 
and  reception  back  into  the  Church,  was  not  denied  even  to 
such  sinners.  Cf.  Frank,  Die  Bussdisciplin,  S.  889. 

P.  197.  After  can.  6  (29),  add:  Second  Law  of  Celibacy, 
cf.  can.  33  of  Elvira. 


APPENDIX.  443 

P.  199,  Sec.  16.  1.  I,  for  "Maximilian,"  read  "  Maximin." 

P.  209.  1.  16,  for  "gods,"  read  "idols." 

P.  210.  n.  2,  add:  And  ^ssemani,  Billiotheca  juris 
orient,  t.  v.  p.  126. 

P.  213.  After  comment  on  can.  13,  add:  A  simpler 
explanation  might  be  given,  if  it  were  permitted  to  under 
stand  xeipoTovelv,  not  of  ordination  proper,  but  in  the  sense 
of  KaOio-rdvai,,  thus  :  It  is  not  permitted  to  Chorepiscopi  and 
city  priests,  without  a  commission  from  the  bishop,  to  appoint 
a  priest  or  a  deacon  (to  a  post)  and  to  invest  him.  The  latter 
idea  is  contained  also  in  Kadio-ravcu. 

P.  216.  1.  5  db  im.,  after  "  Herbst,"  etc.,  add:  recently 
defended  decidedly  by  Frank,  in  his  treatise,  Die  Bussdisciplin 
der  Kirche  (1867),  S.  589  ff. 

P.  217.  After  comment  on  can.  17,  add:  In  opposition 
to  this,  Frank  (I.e.  S.  567  and  589-592)  takes  XeV/oa  in  the 
literal  sense,  and  translates :  "  If  those  who  have  mixed 
themselves  with  an  irrational  brute,  have  thereby  contracted 
an  infectious  disease,"  etc.  He  holds  it  unjustifiable  to 
assume  a  figurative  meaning,  when  the  literal  sense  is 
much  more  serviceable  for  the  explanation  of  the  whole. 
But,  in  the  first  place,  it  is  not  correct  to  say  that  leprosy 
is  a  consequence  of  bestiality ;  and,  in  the  second,  Xe-Trpa)- 
o-ai/T«9,  as  we  showed,  is  transitive,  and  cannot  be  translated, 
"  has  contracted  an  infectious  disease " ;  in  the  third  place, 
the  figurative  use  of  \eirpa  is  as  little  strange,  as  with  us  is 
the  figurative  use  of  contamination.  To  be  consistent,  Frank 
must  also  refuse  to  admit  a  figurative  meaning  in  the  sen 
tence  :  "  Those  who  have  contaminated  themselves  and  others 
by  sin." 

P.  220.  At  end  of  comment  on  can.  21,  after  "Van 
Espen,"  add :  and  recently  Dr.  Kober,  Kircheribanny  S. 
103. 

P.  221.  Can.  23,  translation, for  "unpremeditated,"  read 
"  unintentional." 

P.  226.  End  of  note  on  can.  5,  add :  On  the  correct 
sense  of  our  canon,  cf.  particularly  Mayer,  Gesch.  des  Cate- 
ckumenats,  1868,  S.  52  f.  66. 

P.  228.  After  transl.  of  can.  9,  add :  Canon  Frank  gives 


444  APPENDIX. 

a  fuller  explanation  of  this  canon  in  his  treatise,  Bussdisciplin 
der  Kirche,  Mainz  1867,  S.  464  f. 

P.  231.  Sec.  18,  at  1.  10,  after  "others,"  add:  particularly 
Dionysius  of  Eome,  and  before  him  Callistus. 

P.  232,  n.  2,  add-.  Kuhn,  Quartalschr.  1855,  S.  343  ff., 
and  the  same  writer's  Dogmatik,  Bd.  ii. ;  Trinitatslehre,  S. 
99-107,  and  S.  117-286. 

P.  234,  n.  1,  add:  Kuhn,  Trinitatslehre,  1857,  S. 
239-256  ;  Dittrich,  Dionysius  d.  Gr.  von  Alex.  1867,  S.  91  ; 
Forster,  Theodor.  de  doct.  et  sententia  Dionysii  M.  1865. 

P.  235. 1.  6,  after  "  three  gods,"  add  :  It  is  hardly  probable 
that  he  was  here  combating  a  special  then  existent  tritheistic 
sect  (certainly  none  such  existed) ;  rather  are  we  to  assume 
that  he  had  in  view  the  tritheistic  inference  that  might  be 
drawn  from  some  expressions  of  the  Alexandrian. 

P.  236.  n.  2,  add:  cf.  Kuhn,  Trinitatslehre,  S.  246-254. 

P.  238.  n.  I,  for  Theod.  i.  4,  p.  15,  read  L  5,  p.  21. 

P.  240.  In  par.  7,  after  "  true  God,"  add  :  By  means  of  this 
fundamental  dualistic  conception,  Arius  thought  to  hold  fast 
the  truth  in  Monarchianism,  i.e.  the  full,  unweakened  notion  of 
the  one  absolute  Godhead,  and  also  to  be  able  to  do  justice  to 
the  Christian  belief  in  the  three  divine  Persons,  since  he  placed, 
at  the  top,  the  proposition :  "  There  is  one  God,  the  Father ; 
nothing  can  attain  to  Him,  the  unutterable ;  He  is  absolutely 
and  essentially  separated  from  all  other  existence  " ;  but  im 
mediately  added  the  second  proposition :  "  All  besides  Him 
exists  merely  by  His  will,  and  the  Son  is  His  immediate 
work ;  other  things  are  made  by  the  Father  through  the 
mediation  of  the  Son."  (Cf.  Kuhn,  Trinitatslehre,  S.  348.) 
The  age  of  the  Emperor  Constantine,  etc. 

P.  246.  1.  18,  after  "two,"  delete  comma. 

P.  252.  1.  5,  for  "Mother  of  God,"  read  "God-bearer"; 
note  3,  add:  Bishop  Alexander  meant  to  say:  The  genera 
tion  of  the  Son  is  not  like  another  finite  generation.  It  is 
a  generation,  and  yet  no  (ordinary)  generation.  Moreover, 
there  was  (at  least  in  ordinary  language)  no  difference  at  that 
time  made  between  yevvjTos  =  become  (from  ryiyveaOai),  and 
yevvrjTos  =  begotten  (from  yevvdco).  Cf.  Kuhn,  Trinitatslehre,  S. 
353.  Arius,  in  particular,  argued  from  the  orthodox  term : 


APPENDIX.  445 

"  The  Son  is  not  unbegotten  "  (ayewrjros),  as  if  it  were  said, 
"  He  is  not  a^evrjro^  "  (not  uncreated). 

P.  257.  At  end  of  par.  1,  add :  Cf.  Kuhn,  Trinitatslehre, 
S.  359,  n.  3. 

P.  258.  1.  5,  for  "the  mighty  God,"  read  "as  mighty 
God";  n.  3,  add  Mansi,  xiii.  315. 

P.  265.  Par.  2.  After  "that  assembly,"  the  remainder  of 
the  paragraph  in  ed.  2  stands  as  follows :  The  third  book,  as 
it  lies  before  us,  contains  only  three  letters  of  Constantine ; 
the  whole  of  the  third  book,  however,  is  still  extant  in  a 
codex  of  the  Ambrosian  Library  (Codex  MS.  miscellaneus 
Grcecus,  M.  88,  see  iii.)  discovered  by  A.  Mai,  and  described 
by  Dr.  F.  Oehler  in  Hilgenfeld's  Zeitschrift  f.  wissen.  Theologie, 
1861,  Heft  4,  S.  439  ff.  Unfortunately  it  still  remains 
unprinted. 

P.  267.  Par.  4.  After  "Council  of  Nicsea,"  add:  Another 
supposed  Mcene  document,  the  canon  on  the  Easter  festival, 
Pitra  supposed  that  he  had  discovered  (Spicil.  Solesm,  t.  iv.  p. 
540)  in  the  Collection  of  Canons  by  John  of  Constantinople; 
but  it  is  of  much  more  recent  date,  and  nothing  else  than  a 
collection  of  the  ordinances  passed  at  Nicsea  on  the  subject  in 
question  (cf.  below,  sec.  37).  On  the  9th  of  February  of  this 
year  (1872),  H.  Eevillout  gave  out  in  the  Academy  of  Inscrip 
tions  in  Paris  that  he  had  discovered  in  the  Museum  of  Turin, 
in  a  Coptist  MS.  going  back  to  the  fourth  century,  a  fragment 
of  the  lost  (?)  Acts  of  the  Mcene  Council,  that  the  fragment 
was  a  part  of  the  sentences  of  the  Council  on  Morals,  and  par 
ticularly  had  reference  to  the  "  spiritual  sisters."  So  long  as 
the  new  discovery  is  not  before  us,  naturally  its  value  cannot 
be  determined,  and  least  of  all  can  it  be  estimated  whether 
it  does  or  does  not  contradict  our  statement  that  more  com 
plete  Acts  of  Nicaea  have  never  existed.  The  reference  to 
the  spiritual  sisters,  however,  might  allow  us  to  suppose  a 
relationship  between  the  Coptic  fragment  and  the  third  Nicene 
canon. 

P.  269.  After  line  6,  add-.  He  was  bishop  of  the  Catholic 
Goths  in  the  Crimea  (Besel,  Lelen  des  Uljilas,  S.  115). 

P.  270.  End  of  Sec.  24,  add  note :  Cf.  v.  Sybel,  GcscJi.  des 
crsten  Kreuzzugs.  S.  334  f. 


446  APPENDIX. 

P.  288.  n.  2,  add:  Of.  Zahn,  Marcell  v.  Ancyra,  1867, 
S.  11  ff.,  19,  22,  25,  87. 

P.  294.  n.  1,  1.  7  ab  im.,  after  "controversies,"  add :  It 
runs  thus :  "  We  confess  our  Lord  Jesus,  the  Christ,  who  was 
begotten  from  all  eternity  by  the  Father  according  to  the 
Spirit  (i.e.  according  to  His  divine  nature),  and  was  in  the 
last  days  born  of  the  Virgin  according  to  the  flesh,  one 
Person  composed  of  heavenly  Godhead  and  human  flesh,  and 
in  His  proper  form  man.  He  is  quite  God  and  quite  man, 
quite  God,  also  together  with  (i.e.  in  union,  perd,  with)  the 
body,  but  yet  not  God  according  to  the  body ;  and  quite  man 
also  with  the  Godhead,  but  yet  not  man  according  to  the 
Godhead ;  therefore  in  His  completeness  worthy  of  worship 
also  with  the  body,  but  yet  not  worthy  of  worship  according 
to  the  body ;  and  in  His  completeness  also  with  His  Godhead, 
Himself  worshipping  (the  Father),  but  yet  not  worshipping 
Him  according  to  His  Godhead  ;  altogether  uncreated,  also 
with  the  body,  but  yet  not  uncreated  as  regards  the  body ; 
altogether  fashioned  (TrXacnov)  also  with  the  Godhead,  but 
yet  not  fashioned  as  regards  the  Godhead ;  altogether  of  one 
substance  with  the  Father,  also  with  the  body,  but  yet  not  in 
regard  to  the  body  of  one  substance  with  the  Father,  as  also 
in  His  Godhead,  He  is  not  of  one  substance  with  men, 
although  after  the  flesh,  also  with  the  Godhead,  He  is  of  one 
substance  with  us.  And  if  we  name  Him  of  one  substance 
with  God  after  the  Spirit,  we  do  not  say  that,  after  the  Spirit, 
He  is  also  of  one  substance  with  men ;  and  again,  when  we 
name  Him,  after  the  flesh,  of  one  substance  with  men,  we 
do  not  say  that,  after  the  flesh,  He  is  also  of  one  substance  with 
God.  As,  after  the  Spirit,  He  is  not  of  one  substance  with 
us,  but  in  this  respect  is  of  one  substance  with  God,  so, 
after  the  flesh,  also,  He  is  not  of  one  substance  with  God, 
since  in  this  respect  He  is  of  one  substance  with  us.  As, 
however,  this  explanation  and  elucidation  must  not  serve 
for  the  rending  asunder  of  the  one  Person  of  the  undivided 
Christ,  but  for  making  clear  how  the  attributes  (ISictijjLaTa)  of 
the  flesh  and  of  the  Logos  have  not  become  confused  together 
(et?  &r}\u>cnv  rov  davy^vrov  TMV  ISico/jLdTwv),  so  we  also  declare 
the  union  (crvvQeo-w)  of  the  undivided;  i.e.  we  do  not  say 


APPENDIX.  447 

that  the  natures  in  Christ  become  mixed  (like  the  Mono- 
physites),  yet  we  do  not  separate  them  (like  the  Nestorians), 
but  unite  them."  From  this  extract  it  is  quite  clear  that 
the  creed  in  question  belongs  to  the  period  of  the  Christo- 
logical  controversies,  and  so  to  the  fifth  century,  and  contains 
in  itself  the  termini  technici  (ao-vy^vrw?,  a$iaipeTw<$)  of  the 
fourth  (Ecumenical  Council  at  Chalcedon,  A.D.  451. 

P.  295.  n.  5,  for  Soz.  i.  9,  read  Socrates  i.  9. 

Pp.  298-317,  ending  with  "after  that  event,"  cancelled 
in  the  second  edition,  and  the  following  substituted : — 

The  second  matter  of  importance  on  account  of  which 
the  Synod  of  Nicaea  was  convoked,  was  the  removal  of 
existing  differences  in  celebrating  the  festival  of  Easter. 
As  we  saw  in  sec.  2,  even  in  the  second  century  after  Christ, 
several  Synods  were  occasioned  by  the  Paschal  controversies. 
A  part  of  the  Christian  Church,  particularly  in  Asia  Minor, 
always  celebrated  the  Paschal  feast  on  the  same  day  with 
the  Jews,  on  the  14th  of  Nisan  (18'),  on  whatever  day  of  the 
week  that  might  fall,  and  also  ended  the  fast  on  this  day  (the 
Quartodecimans),  whilst  the  majority  of  Christendom,  par 
ticularly  the  West,  Egypt,  and  Greece,  always  celebrated 
Easter  on  the  Sunday  after  the  14th  of  Nisan,  and  also 
continued  the  fast  up  to  that  time.  In  the  controversy  at 
that  time  between  Pope  Victor  and  the  inhabitants  of  Asia 
Minor,  Irenaeus,  as  Eusebius  remarks  (Hist.  Eccl.  v.  24),  be 
came  an  elp7]voirolo^  (peacemaker),  and  on  this  occasion  wrote 
not  only  to  Victor,  but  also  to  other  bishops  (S.  42  7  f.) ;  but 
the  differences  continued  in  a  disagreeable  manner,  and  in 
the  third  century  there  emerged  a  new  and  important 
matter  of  difference  in  the  festival,  which  we  will  call  the 
astronomical. 

The  Quartodecimans  always  celebrated  Easter  on  the 
14th  of  Nisan,  whatever  day  of  the  week  that  might  be,  the 
other  Christians  on  the  Sunday  after  the  14th  of  Nisan; 
but  then  the  question  came  up :  At  what  time  of  the  year 
does  the  14th  of  Nisan  really  occur?  Or,  How  is  this  date 
of  full  moon  to  be  brought  into  connection  with  the  solar 
year  ?  The  ecclesiastical  year  of  the  Jews,  the  first  month 
of  which  is  called  Nisan,  begins  in  the  spring.  At  the  be- 


448  APPENDIX. 

ginning  of  spring,  and,  in  fact,  about  the  time  of  the  sequinox, 
the  harvest  is  also  ripe  in  Palestine ;  so  that  the  month  of 
Nisan  is  called  the  month  of  harvest,  and  the  great  feast  in 
Nisan,  the  Passover,  is  also  feast  of  the  harvest,  when  the 
first  fruits  of  the  earth  were  offered.1  The  14th  of  Nisan, 
therefore,  falls  along  with  the  full  moon  after  the  vernal 
sequinox ;  and  although  the  lunar  year  of  the  Jews  is  shorter 
than  the  solar  year,  yet  they  lengthened  it  by  means  of  their 
intercalary  month,  so  that  their  14th  of  Nisan  always  fell  at 
the  same  time ; 2  and  was  indeed  fixed  by  the  ripeness  of  the 
harvest. 

Upon  this  point — that  the  Paschal  feast  had  been  calculated 
by  the  ancient  Hebrews,  and  in  the  times  of  Christ,  immediately 
after  the  sequinox  ; 3  and  thus  also  that  it  must  always  take  place 
after  the  beginning  of  spring — upon  this  point  many  Fathers 
of  the  Church  laid  quite  special  weight,  remarking  that  this 
manner  of  reckoning  for  18  had  been  accurately  observed  by 
the  Jews  until  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  only  after 
that  time  they  had  adopted  the  false  practice,  and  had  no 
longer  fixed  their  t8'  after  the  sequinox. 

1  Ideler,  Handbuch  der  Chronologie,  Bd.  i.  5,  S.  486,  487,  490. 

2  Ideler,  I.e.  Bd.  i.  S.  488-490. 

3  Ideler,  I.e.  Bd.  ii.  S.  229.     Weitzel,  Die  Christ.  Passafeier  der  drei  ersten 
Jahrh.  1848,  S.  208,  224. 

P.  328.  After  par.  ending  "  churches,"  add:  Certainly  the 
learned  Benedictine,  now  Cardinal  Pitra,  believed  that  he  had 
discovered  the  Nicene  canon  on  the  Easter  festival  in  the 
Collection  of  Canons  of  the  Patriarch  John  of  Constantinople, 
and  edited  this  discovery  in  the  4th  vol.  of  the  Spicilegium 
Solesmense,  p.  540  sq.  (cf.  above,  445).  But  as  Hilgenfeld 
has  already  remarked  (Paschastreit,  S.  367  f.),  the  state  of 
the  text  visibly  points  to  a  considerably  later  time,  and  the 
pretended  Nicene  canon  is  nothing  else  than  a  collection  of 
the  points  respecting  the  Paschal  controversy  decided  at  Nicsea, 
made  by  an  anonymous  writer.  The  pretended  canon  runs : 
T?)9  ayt'a?  avvoSov  TT}?  ev  Nircdia  Trepl  rov  dyiov 
ireTTpaKrai,  Be  ouro)?  ra  Bo^avra  Traai  rot?  eV  rfj  tepa 
avve\6ov(TLv,  ev  rat?  rj^epais  rov  Qeoaeftovs  real  fjie^akov  Kov- 
,  ol  ol  fjuovov  ffvvyyarfC  TOU?  Trpoyeypannevovs  emcr/co- 


APPENDIX.  449 


7TOU5  et9  ravrbv,  eipijvTjv  iroiovpevos  rw  Wvei  T^JLWV'   d\\d  yap 
Kal   crv/jL7rap(0v    rfj    rovrcov   o/jirjyvpei    crvve^erd^ei,    ra 
povra  rrj   KaOoXifcy  'E/Cfc\r)crla'  1   lirel   Se   roivvv,  e^er 
rov    irpdypaTOs    Trepl    rov   Sew    crv/jLtfrobvcos  dyeiv   TO 
dirdorav  rrjv   VIT   ovpavov  yvpeOq  rd  rpla  ^eprj   r% 

<>  iroLovvra  fPo)/zatot9  KOI  '  A\e^av^pev(TLv  ev  Be 
K\lfjba  TT}?  dvaro\r]s  d^ia^Tovv  eSofe,  Trda^ 
irepLaipedeL<jr)s  /cat  dvriXoylas  oi/reo?  dyeiv  Kal  TOVS 
rou?  ev  rfj  dvaroKr),  co?  dyovcriv  'Paifialot,  Kal  'A\€%av$pels  Kal 
ol  \oiirol  Tra^re?  TT/DO?  TO  Trdvras  ev  fJLia  rj^epa  6fj,o<f)(i)va)s 
dvcLTre/jLTreiv  Ta?  eir^a?  rff  dyia  rj/Aepa  TOV  Ildo-^a'  Kal 
vTreypatyav  OL  TT}?  azxzToX?}?  co?  SiacfrcovovvTes  Trpo?  aXX^Xou?. 
1  All  this  could  plainly  be  said  only  at  a  much  later  period  (Hilgenfeld). 

P.  337.  note.  Hilgenfeld  (Paschastreit,  S.  379)  sees,  in 
these  SmTafa?,  a  Quartodeciman  edition  of  the  so-called 
Apostolic  Constitutions. 

In  the  second  edition  the  author  cancels  the  paragraph 
beginning  "  S.  Epiphanius  "  on  p.  337,  and  ending  on  p. 
338  ;  also  the  paragraph  beginning  "We  have  seen,"  p.  339, 
and  ending  near  the  top  of  p.  340. 

P.  356.  n.  3,  add:  There  are  also  manuscripts  which 
contain  only  the  canons  of  Sardica  without  those  of  Nicaea, 
and  these  nevertheless  are  called  Nicene.  Such  a  manu 
script  is  found  in  the  royal  library  at  Munich. 

P.  368.  1.  11,  for  419,  read  410. 

P.  369.  At  end  of  par.  d,  for  "great,"  read  "greater." 
At  end  of  par.  e,  add  :  Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  Pope 
Julius  confounded  the  canons  of  Sardica  with  those  of 
Nicaea. 

P.  378.  1.  12  ab  im.t  add:  Dr.  Nolte,  in  a  letter  to  me, 
proposed  to  read  ^TV^OKTTOVOV,  i.e.  soul-killing. 

P.  381.  n.  1,  add  :  The  canon  refers  only  to  un 
married  clerics.  See  Mittermiiller  in  Moy's  Archiv,  1866, 
Heft  5. 

P.  387.  Note  to  transl.  of  canon  :  Cf.  Kober,  Kirchenbann, 
S.  188  and  221. 

P.  403.  The  author  cancels  the  par.  beginning  middle  of 
p.  403,  and  ending  middle  of  404. 

P.  411,  1.    5  ab  im.,   after  "heretics,"  add:  The   Greeks 

v.—  29 


450  APPENDIX. 

also  understood  our  passage  in  this  sense,  since  they  pre 
scribed  a  lenedidio  (ev\oyia),  but  not  a  new  consecratio 
(%eipoTovia),  as  Patriarch  Tarasius  of  Constantinople  de 
clared  at  the  first  session  of  the  second  Synod  of  Mcsea 
(Mansi,  t.  xii.  p.  1022;  Hardouin,  t.  iv.  p.  51). 

P.  411.  n.  3,  add:  Cf.  Kober,  Suspension,  etc.,  S.  184, 
and  Hergenrother,  Photius,  Bd.  v.  S.  335  ff. 

P.  416.  1.  1,  for  "  several  times,"  read  "  twice." 

P.  420.  Cancel  the  long  note  on  canon  14,  and  substitute 
the  following :  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  reference  is  to 
catechumens  who  had  become  lapsi  in  the  Diocletian  perse 
cution,  or  to  those  who  had  committed  other  grievous  sins, 
particularly  sins  of  the  flesh.  The  latter  view  was  defended 
in  earlier  times,  particularly  by  Hardouin,  referring  to  c.  5  of 
Neo-Csesarea  (see  vol.  i.  p.  222),  more  recently  by  Mayer  in 
his  GescMchte  des  Katcclmmenats,  1868,  S.  46.  The  latter 
shows  also  that  by  the  aKpocopevoi  =  audientes  of  our  canons 
we  must  understand  not  a  grade  of  the  catechumenate,  but  a 
grade  of  penance,  and  that  at  that  time  grades  of  the  cate 
chumenate  did  not  exist,  whilst  grades  of  penitence  did  (l.c. 
S.  54,  26,  34,  37,  51). 

P.  423.  n.  4,  add:  Kober,  Deposition,  etc.,  S.  43  ff'. 

P.  424.  1.  4,  add:  Whether  by  the  words  a/cvpos  eo-rai,  fj 
Xeiporovi'a,  the  complete  invalidity  of  such  consecration  is 
expressed,  or  only  the  suspensio  al  officio,  is  doubtful.  Cf. 
Kober,  Deposition,  1867,  S.  45  and  143. 

P.  436.  n.  4,  add :  Cf.  Assemani,  Bibli.  juris  orient,  t.  v. 
pp.  124,  126,  141  sqq. 

P.  442.  Add  to  the  notes :  (1)  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  343  ; 
(2)  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  344 ;  (3)  (wanting  in  Hardouin) ; 
(4)  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  527  ;  (5)  Hardouin,  t.  i.  p.  285. 

P.  444.  1.  20,/o?*  "prresento,"  read  "  prsesente." 

P.  447.  In  the  second  edition  the  author  cancels  par.  d 
on  p.  447. 

P.  465.  Add  to  note  on  canon  17  (16):  The  Greeks  and 
also  S.  Jerome  (Ep.  83  Ad  Oceanum,  and  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  Titus)  infer  from  this,  that  if  anyone  was 
married  before  baptism,  and  married  for  the  second  time  after 
baptism,  he  might  be  a  cleric.  The  Latin  Church  is  de- 


APPENDIX.  451 

cidedly  opposed  to  this.  Even  in  his  time  Pope  Innocent  I. 
writes  (Ep.  1  Ad  Victricium) :  Baptismo  remittuntur  peccata, 
non  acceptarum  mulierum  numerus  aboletur." 

P.  485.  Add  to  note  on  canon  69  (68):  By  the  rerpa? 
we  are  certainly  to  understand  the  first  four  days  of  Holy 
week  ;  by  Trapacr/cevr),  Good  Friday  or  Easter  Eve.  Cf.  Nickes, 
and  Scheiner's  Zeitschrift,  Bd.  viii.  S.  49. 


E  K  E  A  T  A — V  O  L.    I Y. 

P.  126.  1.  5  ab  im.,for  1005,  read  1055. 

P.  152.  1.  6  of  Sec.  242,  for  "  imit.,  read  "invitation." 

P.  184.  1.  6,  after  "  would,"  add  "  not." 

P.  210.  ii.  1.  1.  I,  for  ix,  readiL 

P.  223.  1.  19,  for  "  Secundus,"  read  "  Facundus." 

P.  311.  1.  8, for  "merely,"  read  "nearly." 

P.  335.  1.  22,  fur  "confess,"  read  "  confuse." 

P.  432.  1.  9,  for  «  Vigonia,"  read  "  Vigorniii." 

P.  485.  1.  6  ab  im.Jor  "  Hereford,"  read  "  Hertford.  * 


ALPHABETICAL    LIST   OF    SYNODS. 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

ACHAIA   

3rd  century 

1 

92 

Adrumetum     ..... 

394 

2 

406 

Africa     

649 

5 

90 

Agathense,  Concilium  (Agde)  . 
Agaunum  (S.  Moritz) 

506 
515-523 

4 
4 

76 
94 

Agde  (Agatha)         .... 

506 

4 

76 

Alban's,  S.  (Verulam) 

447 

3 

178 

Alexandria      ..... 

231 

1 

88 

Alexandria 

3rd  century 

1 

88 

Alexandria 

306 

1 

130 

Alexandria 

320 

1 

247 

Alexandria       ..... 

339 

2 

46 

Alexandria 

346 

2 

184 

Alexandria       .... 

361 

2 

276 

Alexandria 

363 

2 

282 

Alexandria      ..... 

399 

2 

418 

Alexandria      ..... 

430 

3 

28 

Alexandria      ..... 

451,  circ. 

4 

1 

Alexandria       ..... 

452 

4 

2 

Alexandria       ..... 

482 

4 

28 

Alexandria       ..... 

5th  century 

4 

25 

Alexandria       ..... 

589 

4 

424 

Alexandria      ..... 

633 

4 

449 

Alexandrian    . 

482,  circ. 

4 

27 

Anazarbus 

5th  century 

3 

148 

Anchialtis        ..... 

ante,  150 

1 

78 

Ancyra    . 

314 

1 

199 

Ancyra                       .... 

358 

2 

228 

375 

2 

290 

Angers  (Andegavum) 

453 

4 

3 

251 

1 

96 

264  or  265 

1 

119 

Antioch  ii.                 . 

264-269 

1 

120 

Antioch  iii  

269 

1 

121 

330 

2 

8 

340 

2 

51 

Antioch  ....•• 

344 

2 

180 

452 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF  SYNODS. 


453 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Antioch  ...... 

358 

2 

228 

Antioch  ...... 

361 

2 

275 

Antioch  

362 

2 

280 

Antioch  ...... 

363 

2 

283 

Antioch  ...... 

388  or  389 

2 

389 

Antioch  ...... 

388-390 

2 

390 

Antioch  ...... 

424 

2 

480 

Antioch  ...... 

432 

3 

121 

Antioch  

433 

3 

133 

Antioch  .         .         .         .         . 

445 

3 

173 

Antioch  ...... 

447  or  448 

3 

178 

Antioch  ...... 

451 

4 

1 

Antioch  ...... 

471 

4 

18 

Antioch  ...... 

478,  circ. 

4 

26 

Antioch  

542 

4 

216 

Antioch  ...... 

565,  circ. 

4 

380 

Antioch,  Conciliabulum  . 

431 

3 

56 

Antioch,  Conciliabulum  . 

508  or  509 

4 

87 

Antioch,  in  Caria     .... 

378 

2 

291 

Antioch,  in  Encoenis 

341 

2 

56 

Antioch  on  Orontes 

378 

2 

291 

Antiochene      ..... 

478,  circ. 

4 

25 

Antiochene      ..... 

481 

4 

26 

Antiochene      ..... 

482 

4 

27 

Aquileia  

381 

2 

375 

Arausicana  i.  (Orange)     . 

441 

3 

159 

Arausicana  ii.  (Orange)    . 

529 

4 

152 

Aries       

314 

1 

180 

Aries       

353 

2 

204 

Aries  ii.  . 

443  or  452 

3 

167 

Aries       

463 

4 

13 

Aries       ...... 

475-480 

4 

20 

Aries  iv.          ..... 

524 

4 

131 

Aries  v  

554 

4 

376 

Armenia          .                           . 

5th  century 

3 

154 

Arsinoe  ...... 

255-260 

1 

117 

Arvernense,  Concilium  (Clermont,  in 

Auvergne)    ..... 

535 

4 

190 

Arvernense       ii.      (Clermont,       in 

Auvergne)    

549 

4 

371 

Asia  Minor      ..... 

4th  century 

2 

285 

Asiatic,  two     ..... 

3rd  century 

1 

92 

Astorga  ...... 

446 

3 

175 

Autun     ...... 

670,  circ. 

4 

485 

Auxerre,  Council  of 

578 

4 

409 

Auxerre  ...... 

695 

5 

250 

BARCELONA    ..... 

540,  circ. 

4 

209 

Barcelona        ..... 

599 

4 

428 

Beccancelde     ..... 

694 

5 

248 

Berkhampstead        .... 

697 

5 

249 

Besan9on         ..... 

444 

3 

172 

Biterne  (Be"ziers)      .... 

356 

2 

216 

Bithynia          ..... 

4th  century 

1 

258 

454 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Bordeaux  (Burdigalensis) 

384 

2 

384 

Bordeaux  (Burdigalensis) 

7th  century 

4 

478 

Bostra     

244 

1 

91 

Bourges  (Concilium  Bituricense) 

472 

4 

19 

Bracarensis  iv.  (Braga)    . 

675 

4 

490 

Braga      

411 

2 

446 

Braga  ii.           ..... 

563 

4 

381 

572 

4 

395 

Braga  iv.  (Bracarensis)    . 

675 

4 

490 

Brennacense,  Concilium  . 

577-581 

4 

402 

Brevi  (  Wales  ^           .... 

519 

4 

124 

British,  two    

512  and  516 

4 

93 

British,  three  

560 

4 

380 

British,  two     ..... 

601 

4 

431 

Brittany          ..... 

555 

4 

377 

Burdigalensis  (Bordeaux) 

7th  century 

4 

478 

Byzacene         ..... 

504  or  507 

4 

75 

Byzacene         

541 

4 

210 

CABILOXENSIS  (Chalons  sur  Saone)  . 

644-656 

4 

463 

Cjesaraiigiistana  ii.  (Saragossa) 

592 

4 

426 

Cnesarea,  in  Palestine 

2nd  century 

1 

82 

Cresarea,  in  Palestine 

334 

2 

15 

Canterbury      ..... 

605 

4 

434 

Cappadocia      ..... 

376,  tire. 

2 

290 

Capua      

391 

2 

393 

Caria       

367 

2 

287 

Garpentras       

527 

4 

143 

Carthage          ..... 

218-222 

1 

86 

Carthage          ..... 

249 

1 

92 

Carthage          

251 

1 

94 

Carthage          

252 

1 

96 

Carthage          ..... 

253 

1 

98 

Carthage  i.       ..... 

255 

1 

99 

Carthage  ii.     . 

256 

1 

100 

Carthage  iii.    ..... 

256 

1 

101 

Carthage          

312 

1 

175 

Cartilage          ..... 

345-348 

2 

185 

Carthage,  two  at 

386  or  390 

2 

390 

Carthage  i.       ..... 

394 

2 

406 

Carthage  ii.      . 

397 

2 

407 

Carthage  iii.    ..... 

397 

2 

407 

Carthage          ..... 

398 

2 

409 

Carthage  iv.    . 

399 

2 

418 

Carthage  v.      ..... 

401 

2 

421 

Carthage  vi.     .                   ... 

401 

2 

423 

Carthage  vii.  (Mileve) 

402 

2 

427 

Carthage  viii.  ..... 

403 

2 

439 

Carthage  ix.     . 

404 

2 

440 

Carthage  x.      . 

405 

2 

441 

Carthage  xi.    . 

407 

2 

441 

Carthage  xii.  and  xiii. 

408 

2 

444 

Carthage  xiv  

409 

2 

444 

Carthage  xv.   ..... 

410 

2 

444 

ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


455 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Carthage          

411 

2 

446 

Carthage          ..... 

416 

2 

455 

Carthage          ..... 

417  or  418 

2 

457 

Carthage  xvi.  ..... 

418 

2 

458 

Carthage  xvii.  (or  vi.) 

419 

2 

465 

Carthage  xviii  

421 

2 

479 

Carthage  xix.  . 

421-424 

2 

480,  note 

Carthage  xx.   ..... 

424 

2 

480 

Carthage          

426 

2 

481 

Carthage          ..... 

484 

4 

35 

Carthage          ..... 

525 

4 

138 

Carthage          ..... 

535 

4 

188 

Carthage          ..... 

594  or  595 

4 

426 

Cenomanicum  (at  Le  Mans) 

516  or  517 

4 

107 

Chalcedon        ..... 

451 

3 

285 

Chalons  sur  Marne  ii. 

579 

4 

402 

Chalons  sur  Saone  (Cabillonum) 

470 

4 

18 

Chalons  sur  Saone  (Cabillonum) 

603 

4 

434  and  463 

Chalons  sur  Saone  (Cabillonum) 

644-656 

4 

463 

Charnum  (Garin)     .... 

622 

4 

443 

Cilicia     ...... 

423 

2 

480 

Cirta       

305 

1 

128 

Clermont,  in  Auvergne   (Concilium 

Arvernense)      .... 

535 

4 

190 

Clermont,  in  Auvergne    . 

585-588 

4 

415 

Clermont,  in  Auvergne  (Arvernense 

ii.)  

549 

4 

371 

Clichy,  Council  at  (Clippiaeense)     . 

7th  century 

4 

447 

Clichy  (Clippiacum) 

653 

4 

460 

Clichy  (Clippiacum) 
Clippiacense  (Clichy) 

654 
7th  century 

4 
4 

476 
447 

Clippiacum  (Clichy) 

653 

4 

460 

Clippiacum  (Clichy) 

654 

4 

476 

Cologne  ...... 

346 

2 

181 

Concilium  Arelatense  (Aries)  . 

455 

4 

5 

Constantinople         .... 

335 

2 

27 

Constantinople         .... 

338  or  339 

2 

43 

Constantinople         .... 

360 

2 

271 

Constantinople  (2nd  General  Council) 

381 

2 

342 

Constantinople         .... 

382 

2 

378 

Constantinople        .... 

383 

2 

382 

Constantinople        .... 

394 

2 

406 

Constantinople        .... 

400 

2 

419 

Constantinople         .... 

404 

2 

434 

Constantinople         .... 

426 

2 

482 

Constantinople         .... 

432 

3 

116 

Constantinople         .... 

432 

3 

119 

Constantinople        .... 

448 

3 

189 

Constantinople  i.  and  ii.  . 

450 

3 

271 

Constantinople         .... 

450 

4 

6 

Constantinople         .... 

451,  circ. 

4 

1 

Constantinople        .... 

453 

4 

3 

Constantinople         .... 

478 

4 

26 

Constantinople        .... 

492 

4 

41 

456 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Constantinople         .... 

496 

4 

42 

Constantinople         .... 
Constantinople         .... 
Constantinople         .... 
Constantinople         .... 

497  or  498 
499 
518 
519 

4 

4 

4 

48 
49 
116 
123 

Constantinople         .... 

531,  circ. 

4 

173 

Constantinople         .... 

533 

4 

176 

Constantinople         .         . 
Constantinople         .... 

536 
543 

4 
4 

193 

221 

Constantinople         .... 

565 

4 

380 

Constantinople         .... 

588 

4 

415 

Constantinople         .... 
Constantinople         .... 

626 
638 

5 
5 

15 
64 

Constantinople         .... 

639 

5 

64 

Constantinople  (6th  (Ecumenical)     . 

680 

5 

149 

Constantinople  (Quinisext) 

692 

5 

221 

Constantinople         .... 

754 

5 

307 

Corinth  ...... 

2nd  century 

1 

83 

Corinth  ...... 

419 

2 

478 

Cyprus    

399  or  401 

2 

419 

Cyprus    ...... 

643 

5 

72 

Cyrus,  in  Syria        .... 

478 

4 

25 

DIOSPOLIS,  or  Lydda 

415 

2 

450 

Doornick,  or  Tournay  (Tornacum)  . 

520 

4 

124 

Dovin,  in  Armenia  .... 

527 

4 

145 

EASTERFIELD  

709 

5 

251 

Eastern  ...... 

160 

1 

83 

Eastern  .                  .... 

300 

1 

126 

Egara      ...... 

614 

4 

437 

Egyptian         .    •     . 
Elusa       

341 
551 

2 

4 

53 
373 

Elvira      .... 

305  or  306 

1 

131 

Emerita  (Merida)     .... 

666 

4 

481 

English  

691  or  692 

5 

242 

Epaon     ...... 

517 

4 

107 

Ephesus  ...... 

196 

1 

81 

Ephesus  ...... 

400 

2 

419 

Ephesus  iii  

431 

3 

40 

Ephesus  ...... 

440-450 

3 

173 

Ephesus  (Robber-Synod)  . 

449 

3 

221 

Epirus     ...... 

516 

4 

99 

Epirus     .          ..... 

518-520 

4 

122 

Erata      ...                  .         . 

667 

4 

485 

FRANKISH       ..... 

588 

4 

415 

Frankish          .         .         . 

590 

4 

425 

GALICIA          

447 

3 

175 

Gallican           ..... 

451 

4 

1 

Gangra    ...... 

362,  circ. 

2 

325 

Garin       ...... 

622 

5 

14 

Garin  (Charnum)     .         .         . 

622 

4 

443 

ALPHABETICAL   LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


457 


SYNODS. 

A.D.                V 

OL.        PAGE. 

Gaul  i.    ...... 

2nd  century 

1               81 

Gaul  ii.   . 

2nd  century 

1               81 

Gaul        ...                  . 

2nd  century 

1                83 

Gaul 

447 

3              178 

Gaza       ...... 

541  or  542 

4              216 

Gentilly  . 

767 

5              330 

Gerunda  ...... 

517 

4              105 

HEATIIFIELD  

680 

5              140 

Hertford           

673 

4              485 

Hierapolis        ..... 

ante,  150 

1                78 

Hierapolis,  in  Syria 

445,  circ. 

3              174 

Hippo     ...... 

393 

•2              394 

Hippo     ...... 

426 

2              482 

Hispalensis  ii.  (Seville)    . 

619 

4              442 

Huesca  (Oscensis)    .... 

598 

4              428 

Hypnopsychites  (Sjniod  against  the) 

3rd  century 

1                91 

ICONIUM              ..... 

230-235 

1                89 

Iconium           ..... 

376,  circ. 

2     1         290 

Illyria     

375 

2     '         289 

Illyria     ...... 

515 

4                99 

Irish        

684 

5              216 

Irish  i.,  under  S.  Patrick 

450-456 

4                 7 

Irish  ii.,  under  S.  Patrick 

5th  century 

4                 7 

Isauria    

4th  century 

2              285 

JERUSALEM     

50-52 

1              77 

Jerusalem        ..... 

2nd  century 

1               82 

Jerusalem         ..... 

335 

2                26 

Jerusalem         ..... 

346 

2              184 

Jerusalem         ..... 

399  or  401 

2              419 

Jerusalem         ..... 

415 

2              449 

Jerusalem         ..... 

512 

4                93 

Jerusalem         ..... 

518 

4              118 

Jerusalem         ..... 

536 

4              204 

Jerusalem        ..... 

553,  circ. 

4              343 

Jerusalem         ..... 

634 

5                41 

Jerusalem         ..... 

727 

302 

Junca  (Concilium  Juncense)     . 

523 

4              130 

Juncense,  Concilium  (Junca)    . 

523 

4              130 

KENT      

618,  circ. 

4              442 

LAMBESITANUM,  Concilium 

3rd  century 

1                90 

Lampsacus       ..... 

365 

2              284 

Laodicea          ..... 

343-381 

2              295 

Laodicea          ..... 

481 

4                27 

Larissa    ...... 

531,  circ. 

4             173 

Lateran  .... 

649 

5           97  ff. 

Lateran  ...... 

769 

5              333 

Latona,  in  Lyons  (Latunensis) 

670-673 

4              479 

Latunensis  (Latona,  in  Lyons) 

670-673 

4              479 

Leighlin  (Leriia)      .... 

630-633 

4              448 

458 


ALPHABETICAL   LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


Lenia  (Leighlin) 

Lerida 

Liege 

London  . 

London  . 

Lugo  i.    . 

Lycia 

Lydda,  or  Diospolis 

Lyons 

Lyons      . 

Lyons 

Lyons 

Lyons  ii. 

Lyons 

Lyons,  Conference  at 


Macon  ii. 

Macon     . 

Manaschierte 

Marly,  near  I 

Marseilles 

Matisconensis 

Merida  (Emerita) 

Mesopotamia  . 

Mesopotamia  . 

Mete       . 

Mete        . 

Milan      . 

Milan      . 

Milan      . 

Milan 

Milan      . 

Milan      . 

Milan      . 

Mileve  (Carthage  vii. ) 

Mil  eve     . 

Mixtura,  Concilium 

Mopsuestia 

Morite,  S.  (Agaunum) 


NANTES  .... 

Narbonne 

Narbonne 

Narbonne 

Neo-Csesarea    . 

Nesterfield 

Nestorian,  three,  in  Persia 

Nestorian,  held  in  Persia 

Nicaea      .... 

Nicaea  (7th  (Ecumenical) 

Nicomedia 


658 
255-260 

458 

589 
314-325 

5th  century 

499 

325 

787 
4th  century 


nroDs. 

A.D. 

VOL.    PAGE. 

anicum) 

516  or  517 

4 

107 

630-633       4      448 

524 

4      132 

726 

5      256 

. 

605 

4      434 

. 

712 

5      255 

569 

4      395 

. 

4th  century 

2 

285 

)lis 

415 

2 

450 

475-480 

4 

24 

516 

4 

102 

517 

4 

114 

. 

567 

4 

387 

579 

4 

402 

583 

4 

406 

3e  at 

499 

4 

53 

conensis) 

581 

4 

403 

585 

4 

406 

HI  7-627 

4 

444 

. 

687 

5 

217 

s  (Morlay,  in  Toul)' 

677 

4 

485 

. 

533 

4      481 

!acon  i.) 

581 

4 

403 

)  . 

666 

4 

481 

2nd  century 

1 

83 

3rd  centurv 

1 

126 

549-555       4 

372 

590 

4 

424 

345,  circ. 

2 

181  and  189 

355 

2 

205 

380 

2 

292 

381 

2 

377 

. 

390 

2      392 

451 

3      267 

680 

5      140 

3  vii.) 

402 

2      427 

. 

416 

2      455 

um 

575 

4      399 

. 

550 

4      265 

num) 

515-523 

4       94 

(Marly,  near  Paris)        677 

4      485 

476 

116 

2 

422 

222 

251 

41 

52 

268 

342  ff. 

261 


ALPHABETICAL   LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


459 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Nicomedia       ..... 

366 

2 

285 

Nidd       

705 

5 

254 

Nirnes     ...... 

394 

2 

402 

Nisibis,  under  Barsuraas  of 

485 

4 

35 

Numidian        ..... 

423 

2 

480 

OAK,  the,  nr.  Chalcedon  (Ad  Quercum) 

403 

2 

430 

Orange  ii.  (Arausicana  ii.) 

529 

4 

152 

Orleans  i.         ..... 

511 

4 

87 

Orleans  ii.        ..... 

533 

4 

185 

Orleans  iii.       ..... 

538 

4 

204 

Orleans  iv.       ..... 

541 

4 

210 

Orleans  v  

549 

4 

366 

Orleans  ...... 

640 

5 

69 

Oscensis  (Huesca)    .... 

598 

4 

428 

Osrhoene         ..... 

2nd  century 

1 

82 

PAMPHYLIA     

4th  century 

2 

285 

Paris       

360  or  361 

2 

275 

Paris  ii.  . 

549-555 

4 

372 

Paris  iii. 

556  or  557 

4 

377 

Paris  iv.           ..... 

573 

4 

397 

Paris  (Parisiensis  v.) 

613 

4 

437 

Paris       

653 

4 

476 

Pergamuni       ..... 

152 

1 

83 

Perrha    

445 

3 

174 

Pisidia     ...... 

4th  century 

2 

285 

Poitiers   ...... 

589 

4 

423 

Poitiers   ...... 

590 

4 

424 

Pontus    ...... 

2nd  century 

1 

82 

Ptolemais         ..... 

411 

2 

445 

QUARTODEOIMANS   ....             2nd  century 

1 

81 

Quercum,  Ad  (Oak,  near  Chalcedon) 

403 

2 

430 

Quintian,  under  Bishop  . 

485 

4 

34 

RAVENNA        

419,  circ. 

2 

478 

Reims      ...... 

514 

4 

106 

Reims  i.  . 

630,  circ. 

4 

444 

Reiz         

439 

3 

157 

Rimini  (Seleucia)     .... 

359 

2 

246 

Robber  (Ephesus)    . 

449 

3 

221 

Rome  i  

127-139 

1 

83 

Rome  ii.           .....              2nd  century 

1 

83 

Rome  iii.          ..... 
Rome  iv.           ..... 

2nd  century            1 
2nd  century            1 

83 
83 

Rome       ...... 

236-250                1 

88 

Rome       ...... 

251                    1 

95 

Rome       ...... 

260,  circ.               1 

118 

Rome       .... 

313 

1 

179 

Rome       ...... 

341 

2 

53 

Rome       

353 

2 

203 

Rome       ...... 

369 

2 

288 

Rome       ...... 

374 

2 

288 

460 


ALPHABETICAL  LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Rome       

376 

2 

290 

Rome       ...... 

380 

2 

291 

Rome       .         .         .         .         .         . 

382 

2 

379 

Rome       ...... 

386 

2 

381 

Rome       ...... 

386 

2 

386 

Rome       ...... 

390 

2 

391 

Rome       .         .                           . 

402 

2 

428 

Rome       .         .          .... 

417 

2 

456 

Rome       ...... 

430 

3 

25 

Rome                ..... 

444 

3 

171 

Rome       .... 

445 

3 

172 

Rome       ...... 

447 

3 

178 

Rome       .                  .... 

449 

3 

264 

Rome       ...... 

451,  circ. 

4 

1 

Rome       ...... 

458 

4 

3 

Rome       ...... 

462 

4 

11 

Rome       ...... 

465 

4 

15 

Rome,  under  Pope  Simplicius  . 

478 

4 

26 

Rome,  under  Pope  Felix  . 

483,  circ. 

4 

29 

Rome,  under  Pope  Felix  . 

484 

4 

30 

Rome       

485 

4 

33 

Rome,  under  Pope  Felix  . 
Rome  (two),  under  Pope  Gelasius 

487 
495 

4 
4 

38 
42 

Rome  i.,  under  Pope  Symmachus     . 

499 

4 

49 

Rome  ii.,  under  Pope  Symmaehus    . 

501 

4 

61 

Rome  iii.,  under  Pope  Symmachus  . 

501 

4 

63 

Rome  iv.,  under  Pope  Symmachus   . 

501 

4 

66 

Rome  v.,  under  Pope  Symmachus    . 

502 

4 

69 

Rome  vi.  ,  under  Pope  Symmachus   . 

503 

4 

71 

Rome  vii.  ,  under  Pope  Symmachus  . 

504 

4 

72 

Rome  viii.,  under  Pope  Symmachus 

505 

4 

73 

518 

4 

121 

Rome  i.  and  ii.,  under  Pope  Boni 

face  ii  

531 

4 

172 

Rome  iii.,  under  Pope  Boniface  ii.   . 

531 

4 

174 

Rome,  under  Pope  John  n. 

534 

4 

180 

Rome       ...... 

595 

4 

426 

Rome,  under  Gregory  the  Great 

600 

4 

430 

Rome  (in  the  Lateran),  under  Gregory 

the  Great           .... 

601 

4 

431 

Rome,  under  Pope  Boniface  in. 

606 

4 

434 

Rome,  under  Pope  Boniface  iv. 

610 

4 

434 

Rome       ...... 

640  and  641 

5 

67 

Rome       ...... 

642 

5 

92 

Rome       ...... 

649 

5 

97 

Rome,  under  Pope  Agatho 

679 

4 

492 

Rome       ...... 

679 

5 

206 

Rome       ...... 

680 

5 

140 

Rome       ...... 

703 

5 

252 

Rome       ...... 

721 

5 

256 

Rome       .         .         , 

724 

5 

257 

Rome       ...... 

727 

5 

302 

Rome 

731 

5 

302 

Rome  (Lateran)        .... 

769 

5 

333  ff. 

ALPHABETICAL   LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


461 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL. 

PAGE. 

Roune      ...... 

Doubtful 

4 

468 

SALONA  

6th  century 

4 

424 

Santonensis  (Xaintes) 

579 

4 

403 

Saragossa  (C.iesaraugustana) 

380,  circ. 

2 

292 

Saragossa          ..... 

592 

4 

426 

Saragossa         ..... 

691 

5 

219 

Sardica   ...... 

343  or  344 

2 

86 

Seleucia  ...... 

2nd  century 

1 

85 

Seleucia  ...... 

485 

4 

35 

Seleucia  ...... 

489 

4 

40 

Seleucia  (Rimini)     .... 

359 

2 

246 

Seleucia-Ctesiphon  .... 

410 

2 

444 

Seleucia-Ctesiphon  .... 

420 

2 

478 

Sens        

601 

4 

433 

Seville     

590 

4 

425 

Seville  (Hispalensis  ii.)    . 

619 

4 

442 

Sicily      

125 

1 

83 

Sicily      

366 

2 

286 

Sida        

390,  circ. 

2 

390 

Sidon,  in  Palestine  .... 

511,  512 

4 

92 

Singidunum     ... 

367 

2 

287 

Sinuessa           ..... 

303 

1 

127 

Sirmium  i.       ..... 

347  or  349 

2 

191 

Sirmium  ii.      ..... 

357 

2 

226 

Sirmiuni  iii.     ..... 

358 

2 

231 

Sirmium  (New)        .... 

351 

2 

193 

Smyrna  ...... 

4th  century 

9 

285 

Sourci      ...... 

589  or  590 

4 

423 

Spanish  ...... 

587 

4 

415 

Streaneshalch,  near  Whitby    . 

664 

4 

481 

Sufes       

523,  tire. 

4 

131 

Synada    ...... 

230-235 

1 

90 

Syria  Secunda,  in    . 

518 

4 

119 

Syrian     ...... 

432 

3 

121 

TARRAGONA    

464 

4 

14 

Tarragona        ..... 

516 

4 

102 

Tarsus  (Conciliabulum)    . 

432 

3 

117 

Teilte  (Teltowe,  near  Kells)     . 

562 

4 

380 

Telepte  (Zelle)         .... 

418 

2 

387 

Teltowe,  near  Kells  (Teilte)     . 

562 

4 

380 

Toledo  i  

400 

2 

419 

Toledo    

447 

3 

175 

Toledo  ii  

527  or  531 

4 

148 

Toledo  (  Arian  i         .         .         .         . 

581  or  582 

4 

405 

Toledo  iii. 

589 

4 

416 

Toledo     

597 

4 

428 

Toledo     . 

610 

4 

436  and  486 

Toledo  iv  

683 

4 

449 

Toledo  v.         ... 

636 

4 

45Q 

Toledo  vi. 

638 

4 

*±tjy 
460 

Toledo  vii  

646 

4 

465 

Toledo  viii  

653 

4 

470 

462 


ALPHABETICAL   LIST   OF   SYNODS. 


SYNODS. 

A.D. 

VOL.        PAGE. 

Toledo  ix  

656 

4              474 

Toledo  xi  

675 

4             487 

Toledo     

Unknown 

4             467 

Toledo  xii  

681 

5             207 

Toledo  xiii.      ..... 

683 

5             212 

Toledo  xiv  

684 

5             215 

Toledo  xv  

687 

5             217 

Toledo  xvi  

693 

5             243 

Toledo  xvii.     ..... 

694 

5     ;         247  - 

Toledo  xviii.    .         . 

701 

5     :         250 

Toul        

550 

4             371 

Toulouse  (supposed) 
Tornaeum  (Tourhay,  or  Doornick)    . 
Tour  nay,  or  Doornick  (Tornaeum  »    . 

507 
520 
520 

4                86 
4              124 
4              ]  24 

Tours       

461 

4                10 

Treves     

J585 

2              385 

Trier        

667,  circ. 

4             485 

Troyes     ...... 

429 

2             482 

Trullan    

692 

5             221 

Tungern  ...... 

708 

5             256 

Turin      

401 

2              426 

Twyford           

684 

5              216 

Tyana      

367 

2             287 

Tyre        

335 

2               17 

Tyre        

518 

4              118 

UTRECHT        

697 

5             250 

Utrecht  

719 

5             256 

VAISON  (Concilium  Vasense)   . 

442 

3             164 

Vaison  ii.         ..... 

529 

4             169 

Valence  i.        ..... 

374 

2             289 

Valence  i.         ..... 

529 

4             167 

Valence  ii.       ..... 

584 

4              406 

Valencia  ...... 

524 

4              136 

Vennes,  or  Vannes  (Concilium  Vene- 

ticum)      

465 

4                16 

Verulam  (S.  Alban's) 

447 

3              178 

Vicovalari        ..... 

715 

5              256 

Victoria  (Wales)      .... 

520 

4               124 

Vienne    ...... 

-171-475 

4                 li» 

Villeroi   ...... 

684-685 

5              216 

WALES  (Brevi)         .... 

519 

4              124 

Wales  (Victoria)      .... 

520 

4              124 

Wessex    ...... 

8th  century 

5              254 

Western  (probably  Milan) 

347 

2         :                190 

XAINTES  (Santonensis)    . 

579 

4              403 

ZELE,  in  Pontus      .... 

4th  century 

2              281 

Zelle  (Telepte) 

418,  circ" 

2             387 

Zeugma  ...... 

5th  century 

3              146 

INDEX. 


ABBESSES  at  Synods,  248,  254.  Cf.  the 
articles,  Nun,  Nunnery,  Monastery. 

Abbot,  may  be  ordained  as  lector, 
383.  Cf.  articles,  Monk,  Monastery. 

Abgar's  picture,  291. 

Abortion,  235. 

Adderburn,  Synod  at,  254. 

Adeodatus,  Pope,  137. 

Agape,  forbidden  in  the  churches.  233. 

Agatho,  Deacon,  199,  258. 

Agatho,  Pope,  139  ;  requests  the 
Westerns  to  express  themselves  on 
the  subject  of  Monothelitism,  139 ff. ; 
his  Synod  at  Rome  in  the  year  680, 
140  ;  he  sends  deputies  to  Constanti 
nople,  140  ;  letter  of  his  Synod, 
142  ff. ;  he  maintains  that  Rome  has 
never  erred  in  the  faith,  143  ff. ;  he 
dies,  179. 

Agnoetse,  2. 

Aldhelm,  S.,  242,  243,  254. 

Alexandria,  Synod  of,  A.D.  633,  21  ; 
ecclesiastical  relations,  18. 

Alfrid,  English  King,  251. 

Alne,  Synod  at,  A.D.  709,  255. 

Altar.     See  article,  Mass. 

Amandus,  bishop  of  Tungern,  115. 

Anastasius,  Emperor,  259. 

Anastasius,  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople,  276  ;  for  iconoclasm,  281  ; 
for  the  images,  306  ;  against  them 
again,  307  ;  dies,  308. 

Anastasius,  two  disciples  of  Abbot 
Maximus,  126  ;  their  death,  134. 

Andrew  Kalybites  and  Andrew  in 
Crisi,  319,  324. 

Aquileia,  Synod  of,  A.D.  700,  250. 

Arcadius,  archbishop  of  Cyprus,  12f., 
72. 

Aries,  Synod  of,  A.D.  682,  212. 

Armenians,  union  of,  13  ;  Monophysite, 
217  ;  at  the  Eucharist  use  only  wine, 
228  ;  superstitions  at  Masses  in  Ar 
menia,  236;  fasts  of  Armenians,  231  ; 
Armenian  Synods,  13,  217. 


Artabasdus,  opposition  Emperor,  306. 
Ascetes  and  monks  not  to  eat  with 

women,  385. 

Asylum,  right  of,  in  churches,  211,  243. 
Audcenus,    S.,    archbishop   of  Rouen, 

69,  70,  98  f.,  115. 

BAPTISM,  may  not  be  deferred,  nor 
charged  for,  249  ;  within  thirty  days 
of  birth,  243  ;  no  baptisms  in  Lent, 
and  the  font  to  be  sealed  by  the 
bishop,  247  ;  repetition  of  baptism 
in  cases  of  doubt,  234. 

Bardanes,  Emperor,  257. 

Bath,  the  common  bathing  of  both 
sexes  forbidden,  233. 

Bears  may  not  be  led  about,  super 
stition  connected  with  this,  232. 

Beccancelde,  Synod  of,  A.D.  694,  248. 

Bede,  Venerable,  242. 

Benedict  II.,  Pope,  215. 

Berghampstead,  Synod  of,  A.D.  697, 
249. 

Beser,  renegade,  266,  305. 

Bible,  by  none  to  be  unhommred,  232. 

Bishop,  influence  of  Emperor  on 
election  of,  168  ;  Major  donuis 
Ebroin  deposes  bishops,  216  ;  in 
Spain  bishops  are  nominated  by  the 
King,  and  consecrated  by  the  arch 
bishop  of  Toledo,  210  ;  in  England 
the  archbishop  appoints  bishops  and 
abbots,  248  ;  only  bishops  may  elect 
a  bishop,  379  ;  the  metropolitan, 
with  the  comprovincial  bishops, 
with  the  clergy  and  laity,  elects 
the  new  bishop,  246  ;  many  Greek 
bishops  sell  their  office,  388  ;  no 
layman  may  be  ordained  bishop 
until  a  year  has  elapsed  from  his 
conversion,  354  ;  nevertheless,  lay 
men  become  bishops,  336,  346,  347  ; 
lengthy  vacancy  of  bishoprics,  210  ; 
bishoprics  rank  according  to  the 
civil  dignity  of  a  city,  229  ;  if  any- 


464 


INDEX. 


one  is  consecrated  bishop,  his  wife 
must  go  into  a  distant  convent  or  be 
come  a  deaconess,  230  ;  frequently  not 
observed  in  Africa,  226  ;  no  woman 
may  be  in  see-houses,  384  ;  a  bishop 
may  not  wear  showy  apparel,  nor 
anoint  himself,  384  ;  bishops  must 
care  for  churches,  and  appoint  priests 
to  them,  245  ;  what  a  bishop  must 
know,  379  ;  many  bishops  are  so 
poor  that  they  must  support  them 
selves  by  manual  labour,  and  have 
little  learning,  143, 147 ;  bishops  share 
in  church  property,  245  (cf.  article 
on  Church  and  church  property)  ; 
some  bishops,  from  covetotisness, 
burden  the  clergy  and  the  churches, 
245,  379  ;  the  bishop  must  go  at 
Easter  to  his  metropolitan,  and 
celebrate  the  festival  with  him,  219  ; 
rights  of  bishops  over  abbots  and 
monasteries  (see  article,  Abbot] ;  a 
bishop  may  not  receive  a  strange 
cleric  or  monk,  nor  ordain  him  or 
employ  him,  214  ;  Episcopal  libera 
tion  of  slaves  (cf.  article,  Slave) ; 
bishops  must  care  for  King  and 
kingdom,  for  righteousness,  for  the 
good  of  the  State,  208,  213  ;  bishops 
as  judges,  244  ;  a  bishop  may  be 
accused  before  the  metropolitan, 
214  ;  and  must  appear  before  him 
when  he  is  summoned,  214  ;  to 
whom  the  bishop  may  appeal,  when 
he  feels  himself  oppressed  by  the 
metropolitan,  214  ;  treason  against 
the  sovereign  or  the  country,  246  ; 
punishment  of  sinful  bishops,  246  ; 
ordinance  on  property  left  by  a 
bishop,  228  ;  eniscopi  in  partibus, 
229. 

Blacherupe,  S.  Mary's  Church  there, 
315. 

Blood,  strangled,  and  swine's  flesh 
forbidden  to  be  eaten,  230. 

Boniface,  apostle  of  the  Germans,  254, 
255. 

Bride,  the,  of  another,  no  one  may 
marry  or  carry  off,  236. 

Brithwald  [Bertwald],  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  248,  251  ;  reconciled 
with  S.  Wilfrid,  252. 

CALABRIA   and    Sicily  rent  from  the 

patriarchate  of  Rome,  304. 
Canones  et  Constitutiones  Apostolicse, 

223  f. 
Catechumenia,  a  place  in  the  Church, 

297. 
Catechumens  mustlearn  the  Creed,  233. 


Celibacy.  —  Many  married  clerics  in 
Spain  and  Africa,  and  some  living  with 
their  wives,  225  ;  Greek  law  on  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy,  224,  225  f. ; 
opposition  to  Rome,  226,  228  (c.  30)  ; 
the  Spanish  King  Witiza  abolishes 
the  law  of  celibacy,  251. 

Chalcoprateia,  incident  there,  273 f., 
293. 

Chlodwign.,  King,  115. 

Chorepiscopi,  or  country  bishops,  383. 

Christmas,  superstitious  usages  at, 
233. 

Christ's  picture  destroyed  in  Chalco 
prateia,  273  f.,  293. 

Church  and  church  property,  consecra 
tion  of,  only  on  Sundays,  219  ; 
churches  not  to  be  dishonoured  by 
marital  intercourse,  236  ;  no  booths, 
wine-shops,  etc.,  to  be  in  the  neigh 
bourhood  of  churches,  233  ;  in  case 
of  necessity,  cattle  may  be  sheltered 
in  a  church,  235  ;  churches  and  con 
vents  must  not  be  turned  into 
secular  dwellings,  230  ;  repairing  of 
churches,  245  ;  the  bishop  must 
provide  for  the  repair  of  churches, 
and  appoint  priests  to  them,  245  ; 
every  church  which  possesses  ten 
mancipia  must  have  a  priest  of  its 
own,  245  ;  ecclesiastical  revenues 
are  to  be  divided  into  three  parts, 
245  ;  church  dues  to  be  paid  at 
Martinmas,  243  ;  church  property 
must  not  be  made  over  to  laymen, 
princes,  etc.,  383  ;  securing  of 
church  and  monastic  property,  249  ; 
immunity  of  the  church,  248  ;  care 
of  the  church,  208,  212  f. 

Church,  States  of. — The  possessions  of 
the  Roman  Church  seized  by  the 
Greek  Emperors,  306  ;  also  by  the 
Lombards,  307  ;  Pope  Stephen  in. 
appeals  for  help  to  Pipin,  King  of 
the  Franks,  307;  Pipin  takes  the 
exarchate  of  Ravenna  and  Penta- 
polis  from  the  Lombards,  and  makes 
them  over  to  the  holy  see,  317  ; 
Constantine  Copronymus  threatens 
these  beginnings  of  the  States  of  the 
Church,  318. 

Clerics  and  Clergy. — What  knowledge 
they  must  possess,  379 ;  age  for 
ordination,  226;  the  higher  clergy 
may  not  live  with  their  wives  (see 
Celibacy) ;  widows  of  clergy  may  not 
marry  again,  256  ;  punishment  of 
the  clergy  for  fornication  and 
drunkenness,  225,  249  ;  clerics  may 
not  serve  two  churches,  383  ;  clerics 


JNDEX. 


465 


may  riot  wear  showy  garments,  nor 
anoint  themselves,  384  ;  clerics  may 
not  let  their  hair  grow,  257 ;  nor 
keep  an  inn,  225 ;  nor  receive  usury, 
225  ;  nor  take  part  in  horse-races  or 
theatres,  227  ;  whether  they  may 
attend  at  marriages,  227 ;  many 
kinds  of  business  permitted  to  the 
poor  clergy,  383  ;  poor  clerics  must 
sustain  themselves  by  manual 
labour,  143,  146. 

Concilium  —  patriarchal  diocese,  142. 
See  Synods. 

Conon,  Pope,  220. 

Constantine,  bishop  of  Nacolia,  gave 
occasion  for  the  iconoclastic  contro 
versy,  266  ff. 

Constantine,  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople,  his  oaths  against  images  and 
monks,  326  ;  deposed  and  beheaded, 
327. 

Constantine,  Pope,  240,  258;  anti- 
pope,  329,  332  f.,  336. 

Constantine  the  Great,  legends  on  his 
conversion,  350. 

Constantine  Copronymus,  Emperor, 
305;  his  vices,  325  f. ;  dies,  338.  See 
article,  Images. 

Constantine  Pogoriatus,  Emperor,  137  ; 
desires  ecclesiastical  union,  137  ; 
writes  to  the  Pope,  138  ;  to  the 
Patriarch  George  of  Constantinople, 
148  ;  ratines  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  179  ;  recognises  the  primacy, 
179  ;  dies,  219. 

Constantine  Porphyrogenitus,  Em 
peror,  342  f. 

Constantinople,  privileges  of  the  see 
of,  228. 

Constantinople,  Synod  at,  A.D.  626,  15  ; 
A.D.  638  and  639,  65 ;  A.D.  655, 
131  ;  about  A.D.  660,  134  ;  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council  there,  A.D.  680 
— place,  time,  members,  149 ff.;  pre 
sidency,  150  ;  first  session,  149  ; 
sessions  2-7,  153  ff.;  session  8,  156  ; 
session  9  and  10,  162  ;  sessions  11 
and  12,  164  ;  session  13,  judgment 
on  the  letter  of  Sergius  to  Pope 
Honorius,  and  on  the  first  letter 
of  Pope  Honorius,  166  f. ;  on  his 
two  letters,  168  ;  on  Honorius  him 
self,  167,  173-176 ;  session  14, 
169  ;  session  15,  the  Monothelite 
Polychronius  offers  to  prove  his 
doctrine  by  miracles,  172  ;  session 
16,  mediation  theory  of  the  priest 
Constantino  of  Apamea,  173  ;  ses 
sion,  17,  173  ;  session  18,  the  decree 
of  the  faith,  173  ff. ;  X67os 

v.— 30 


of  the  Synod,  176 f.;  its  letter 
to  Pope  Agatho,  177;  imperial  edict 
for  confirmation  of  its  decrees,  178  ; 
judgment  on  Honorius,  178  ;  papal 
confirmation  of  the  decrees  of  the 
Council,  179,  180  ;  the  opponents  of 
the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Council  sent 
to  Rome,  all  are  there  converted 
except  Macarius  of  Antioch,  179, 
180  ;  the  anathema  on  Pope  Hono 
rius  examined,  181  ff. ;  the  Council 
judges  the  Pope  too  harshly,  184  ; 
his  fault  more  exactly  estimated  by 
Pope  Leo,  185  ;  genuineness  of 
the  synodal  Acts,  hypothesis  of 
Baronius,  200  ff.  ;  hypothesis  of 
Boucat,  203  ;  of  Damberger,  204  ; 
recognition  of  the  Synod  in  the 
West,  181,  215  f.,  218  ;  examination 
of  the  Acts  of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Council,  219ff. ;  the  Quini-sexta,  or 
Trullan,  A.D.  692,  221  ;  Concilia- 
bulum,  A.D.  712,  258;  Synods, 
A.D.  715  f.,  258  f.;  Mock-Synod, 
A.D.  754,  307  ff. 

Convents  for  women. — The  candidate 
must  not  enter  in  fine  clothing,  230 ; 
whether  nuns  may  leave,  230  ;  they 
may  not  sleep  out  of  the  convent, 
nor  in  a  man's  convent,  230  f. 

Corbinian,  S.,  257. 

Cosmos,  bishop  of  Epiphania,  enemy  of 
images,  328. 

Cosmos,  patriarch  of  Alexandria, 
327  f. 

Cross,  the  holy,  stolen  by  the  Persians, 
3  ;  taken  from  them  again,  17  ; 
figure  of  the  cross  not  to  be  made  on 
the  ground,  233  ;  crucifix,  234. 

Cypriote  Synod,  A.D.  643,  72;  rights 
of  the  archbishop  of  Cyprus,  229. 

Cyrus  of  Phasis,  at  first  against  fiia 
tvtpyeia,  11 ;  misled  by  Sergius,  14  f. ; 
becomes  archbishop  of  Alexandria, 
and  unites  the  Monophysites,  18  ; 
commends  the  Ecthesis,  65  ;  is  de 
posed,  and  reinstated,  65. 

DANCES,  theatrical,  forbidden,  230. 
Deacon   may   sit  before  a   priest  only 

when  he  represents  his  bishop,  225. 
Deaconesses  must  be   forty  years  old, 

226  ;    may    not    marry,    256 ;    the 

widow  of  a   bishop   may  become   a 

deaconess,  230. 
Deans  in  monasteries,  331. 
Defensor  pauperum,  office  among  the 

Roman  clergy,  303. 
Demoniac,  many  pretend  to  be,  their 

punishment,  231. 


466 


INDEX. 


Diaconia,  place  in  the  church,  297. 
Dice-playing  forbidden,  230. 
Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  did  he  teach 

Monothelitism  ?  7,  21. 
Diptychs,  138,  139. 
Duels  forbidden,  243. 
Dyothelitism,  21,  24,  27. 

EASTER  festival,  lasts  eight  days,  232  ; 
Irish  and  Roman  reckoning  of  Easter, 
252,  254. 

Easterfield,  Synod  of,  A.D.  701,  251. 

Eating,  should  both  sexes  eat  to 
gether  ?  385. 

Ecthesis  of  the  Emperor  Heraclius,  61 ; 
received  in  the  East,  64  ;  rejected  in 
Rome,  66,  70  ;  Heraclius  promises  to 
abolish  it,  69  ;  it  remains  in  force, 
70. 

Egiza,  King  of  Spain,  217,  243,  247. 

Eligius,  S.,  69,  115. 

frtpyeia,  pia,  4  f. ;  taught  by  Sergius 
before  A.D.  619,  5;  OeavSpiKT]  dvtpyfia, 
10,  20. 

English  Synods,  A.D.  680  or  681,  206  ; 
A.D.  691  or  692,  242  ;  in  the  begin 
ning  of  the  eighth  century,  254  f. 

Ervig,  King  of  Spain,  207  ff.,  214; 
dies,  217. 

Esra,  patriarch  of  Armenia,  is  for 
union,  13. 

Eucharist,  holy,  reception  of,  not  re 
quired  to  be  fasting  in  Africa,  228  ; 
no  layman  may  administer  the  holy 
Eucharist  to  himself,  if  a  cleric  is 
present,  231  ;  the  Eucharist  is  given 
into  the  hand  of  the  receiver,  236  ; 
prescriptions  on  the  reception  of  the 
holy  communion,  236  ;  the  Eucharist 
may  not  be  given  to  the  dead,  234  ; 
no  priest  may  demand  anything  for 
the  administration  of  holy  com 
munion,  227.  Cf.  the  article,  Mass. 
ugenius  I.,  Pope,  125. 

Eusebius  of  Csesarea  against  the  images, 
371,  373. 

FASTING,  of  the  Latins  on  Saturday 
opposed  by  the  Greeks,  231  ;  eggs 
and  cheese  forbidden  on  fast  days, 
231  ;  fasting  in  Holy  Week  must 
last  until  midnight  on  Easter  Eve, 
235  ;  punishments  for  not  fasting, 
249  f. 

Feuds,  private,  and  duels  forbidden, 
243. 

Fires  at  new  moons,  a  superstition, 
232. 

First-fruits  to  be  given  to  the  Church, 
243. 


Foot  -  washing  at  the  Ccena  Domini, 
not  beyond  custom,  247. 

Franks,  the  Pope  seeks  an  alliance 
with,  286  ;  Franks  found  the  State 
of  the  Church,  317  f. ;  their  relation 
to  iconoclasm,  330. 

Freedmen,  whether  they  may  become 
officials  of  State,  213  ;  must  present 
their  letter  of  emancipation,  219. 

GARIN,  Synod,  about  A.D.  622,  14. 

Gentilly,  Synod,  A.D.  767,  330. 

George,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
148. 

Germanus,  patriarch  of  Constanti 
nople,  258,  259,  277,  280. 

Gregory  n.,  Pope,  240,  256  ;  in  favour 
of  the  images,  278  f. ;  whether  he 
was  disloyal  to  the  Emperor,  and 
failed  in  his  duty  as  a  subject, 
281  if.,  284,  285,  288;  the  Emperor 
attempts  his  life,  282  ff. ;  his  letters 
to  Leo  the  Isaurian,  289,  295 ;  time 
of  their  composition,  298  ff. 

Gregory  in.,  Pope,  tries  to  lead  the 
Emperor  away  from  iconoclasm, 
302  f. 

HADRIAX  i.,  Pope,  241,  343,  346 ; 
declares  himself  for  the  veneration 
of  images,  348  ff. ;  asserts  strongly 
the  dignity  and  privileges  of  the 
Roman  see,  350  -  353  ;  commends 
Charles  the  Great,  353. 

Hadrian  u.  thinks  the  Pope  can  be 
deposed  for  heresy,  187. 

Hair,  ordinances  regarding,  229,  236, 
257. 

Heathenism  and  heathenish  remains. 
See  Superstition. 

Heathfield,  Synod  at,  A.D.  680,  140, 
206. 

Heraclius,  Emperor,  draws  towards 
the  Persians,  1,  12  ;  steals  the  holy 
cross,  17  ;  becomes  patron  of  Mono 
thelitism,  3f.,  11,  12  ;  his  Ecthesis, 
61  ;  dies,  68. 

Heretical  baptism,  235. 

Hermits  and  recluses,  ordinances 
respecting,  229  f. 

Hierapolis,  transactions  at,  on  fila 
dvtpyeia,  16. 

Honorius,  Pope,  his  first  letter  to 
Sergius,  27  ;  condemnation  of,  32  ; 
his  second  letter  to  Sergius,  49  ; 
Abbot  Joannes  Symponus  composes 
these  letters,  53,  54  ;  whether  the 
text  is  falsified,  27,  28,  56  f. ;  con 
demnation  of  his  doctrine,  50  ff. ; 
the  apology  of  Pope  John  iv.  and 


INDEX. 


467 


of  Abbot  Joannes  Symponus  for 
Honoring,  52,  53  f. ;  Abbot  Maximus 
and  Abbot  Anastasius  also  defend 
him,  55  ;  the  Monophysites  appeal  to 
Honorius,  152,  160,  165  ;  he  contra 
dicted  himself,  178,  184  ;  judgment 
of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  on 
him  and  his  letters,  166,  167,  169, 
173,  176  ;  judgment  of  the  Emperor 
on  him,  177;  examination  of  the 
synodal  decree  against  Honorius, 
1*81  ff. ;  the  Council  condemns  him 
too  severely,  184  ;  his  fault  more 
accurately  denned  by  Leo  n.,  185  ; 
judgment  of  the  Trullan,  and  of 
the  seventh  and  eighth  CEcumen- 
ical,  Synods  on  Honorius,  186,  346, 
374  ;  the  papal  oath  on  Honorius, 
374  ;  judgment  of  Hadrian  ir.  on 
Honorius,  187  ;  hypothesis  of 
Baronius,  Boucat,  and  Damberger. 
190-204  ;  Pennacchi's  treatise  on 
Honorius,  23,  37,  57,  181,  188  ; 
Schneemann's  studies  on  the 
Honorius  question,  37,  180  f. ;  final 
conclusion  of  both  compared  with 
ours,  189f. 
Hunting  forbidden,  230. 

IMAGES,  indecent,  forbidden,  236 ; 
veneration  of,  in  England,  255. 

Images,  controversy  respecting,  its 
origin,  260  If. ;  literature  on  the 
subject,  264  ;  motives  for  it,  269  f. ; 
first  edict  of  Leo  the  Isaurian 
against  images,  A.D.  726,  269  ff. ; 
occurrence  in  Chalcoprateia,  273  f. ; 
insurrections  on  account  of  the 
prohibition  of  images,  275 ;  the 
great  imperial  assembly,  A.D.  730, 
277  ;  Pope  Gregory  n.  for  the 
images,  278 f.;  Patriarch  Anastasius 
of  Constantinople  sanctions  the 
attack  on  images,  280  ;  Italy  opposes 
the  attack  on  images,  relation  of 
Gregory  n.,  280  ff. ;  his  letters  to 
the  Emperor,  289,  295  ;  time  of 
their  despatch,  298  ff. ;  no  image  of 
God  the  Father,  291  ;  the  first 
Synods  on  images, 301  ff. ;  Gregory  in. 
seeks  to  turn  the  Emperor  from 
iconoclasm,  302  ;  the  Emperor  Leo 
takes  vengeance  on  Rome,  and 
rends  the  Illyrian  provinces  from 
Rome,  304  f.;  his  son,  Constantine 
Copronymus,  becomes  Emperor,  and 
helps  the  iconoclastic  movement 
from  A.D.  471,  305  ;  his  rival,  Arta- 
basdus,  is  in  favour  of  the  images, 
306  ;  Constantine  restored,  306  ; 


the  Mock-Synod  at  Constantinople, 
A.D.  744,  forbids  the  images,  307  ff.; 
asserts  that  whoever  makes  an 
image  of  Christ  falls  into  Nestorian- 
ism  or  Monophysitism,  31  If.;  the 
destruction  of  images  a  pretext  for 
church  -  spoliation,  313 ;  in  the 
Greek  Empire  the  images  are 
everywhere  destroyed,  and  pictures  of 
animals  and  hunts  brought  into  the 
churches,  315  f. ;  opposition  and 
emigration  of  the  monks,  316  f.; 
cruelties  of  the  Emperor  Constantine 
Copronymus,  318  ;  martyrs,  319 ; 
the  Emperor  endeavours  to  root  out 
Monasticism,  325  ;  requires  an  oath 
against  the  images,  325  ;  the  venera 
tion  of  relics  and  of  the  saints  also 
forbidden  by  him,  314 f.,  326;  the 
patriarchs  of  the  East  are  for  the 
images,  327  ;  the  Franks  and  the 
Synod  of  Gentilly,  A.D.  767,  330  ; 
the  Lateran  Synod,  A.D.  769,  for  the 
images,  337  f. ;  the  Emperor  Leo  iv., 
son  of  Copronymus,  somewhat 
milder  against  the  friends  of  images, 
339  ;  yet  cases  of  harshness,  339  f. ; 
the  Empress  Irene  becomes  guardian 
of  her  son,  and  protects  the  venera 
tors  of  images,  340  f. ;  makes  pre 
parations  for  the  convocation  of  an 
(Ecumenical  Council  on  account  of 
the  images,  342 ;  the  Patriarch 
Tarasius  of  Constantinople  in  favour 
of  the  veneration  of  images,  and  for 
reconciliation  with  Rome,  343  ; 
Irene  writes  to  the  Pope,  and  invites 
him  to  a  Synod,  347  ;  answer  of 
Pope  Hadrian  I. :  he  defends  the 
images,  349;  letter  of  the  Orientals 
to  Tarasius,  354  ;  the  first  attempt 
at  the  holding  of  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Synod  miscarries,  357  ; 
Synod  at  Nicsea,  359  ff. ;  its  decrees, 
369,  373;  images  of  stone  (statues), 
also  approved,  367,  374  ;  Irene 
carries  through  the  decrees,  391  ; 
is  deposed,  393  ;  dies,  393  ;  the  new 
Emperors,  Nicephorus  and  Michael 
Rangabe,  also  in  favour  of  the 
images,  393 ;  iconoclasm  renewed 
under  the  Emperor  Leo,  the 
Armenian,  393 ;  division  of  the 
West  on  the  controversy,  329. 

Ina,  English  King,  242,  254. 

Incest.     See  Marriage, 

Insurrection,    punished   with    infamy, 
208,  212. 

Intercessory  processions.    See  Litanioc. 

Interdict  forbidden,  214. 


468 


INDEX. 


Irene,  Empress,  wife  of  Leo  IV.,  339 ; 
banished  on  account  of  the  images, 
340  ;  prepares  to  summon  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Council,  as  guardian  of 
her  son  Constantine,  342  ;  writes  to 
the  Pope,  347  ;  is  at  variance  with 
her  son,  391  ff. ;  with  Charles  the 
Great,  391 ;  is  deposed,  393  ;  dies, 
393. 

Irish  Council,  A.D.  684,  216. 

Jejunium  Eucharisticum,  228. 

Jerusalem  Synod,  A.D.  634,  41  ;  Synod 
on  account  of  the  images,  302. 

Jews,  harsh  laws  against  the  Jews  of 
King  Ervig,  207,  210,  244;  burial 
of  Jews,  207,  210  ;  privileges  for 
Jews  who  become  Christians,  244 ; 
Judaism  to  be  rooted  out  in  Spain, 
244,  248  ;  conspiracy  of  Jews  in 
Spain  against  King  Egiza,  247  ; 
treatment  of  Jews  who  have  become 
Christians  only  in  appearance,  381. 

Jezid,  Caliph,  enemy  of  the  images, 
268  ff. 

John  iv.,  Pope,  67  ;  his  apology  for 
Pope  Honorius,  37  ;  his  letter  to  the 
Emperor,  67  ;  dies,  70. 

John  v.,  Pope,  219. 

John  vi.,  Pope,  252. 

John  vii.,  Pope,  240. 

John  vni.,  Pope,  240,  241. 

John  Damascene,  for  the  images,  304, 
314,  317. 

John  of  Philadelphia,  papal  vicar  in 
the  East,  116. 

Judices,  153,  155. 

Julian,  S.,  archbishop  of  Toledo.  207, 
212,  215,  218  ;  dies,  219. 

Jurists,  ordinances  respecting,  233. 

Justinian  n.,  Emperor,  219,  222,  239. 

KING. — The  King  strikes  his  officials 
and  nobles,  213  ;  the  widow  of  a  King 
may  not  remarry,  213  ;  she  must  go 
into  a  convent,  219 ;  the  Church 
limits  the  despotic  power  of  Kings, 
213 ;  the  Church  cares  for  King, 
kingdom,  and  righteousness,  213 ; 
for  the  King  and  his  family,  246  ; 
fidelity  to  the  King  enforced,  246  ; 
traitors  against  the  King,  244,  246. 

LATERAN    Synod,    A.D.     649,    97 ff.; 

A.D.  769,  333. 
Laureata  =  likeness    of  the   Emperor, 

274. 
Laymen   may  not  be  public  speakers 

in  matters    of   religion,    232.     See 

Clergy. 


Legates,  papal,  are  weak,  overstep 
their  powers,  118,  128  f.,  302,  318. 

Leo  ii.,  Pope,  179;  writes  to  the 
Emperor,  180  ;  announces  his  elec 
tion  at  Constantinople,  180 ;  con 
firms  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
and  pronounces  anathema  on  Pope 
Honorius,  180  ;  writes  to  the 
Spaniards,  181,  185  ;  are  his  letters 
genuine?  185,  202,  215;  he  defines 
the  sense  of  the  sentence  of  the 
sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod  on  Pope 
Honorius,  190. 

Leo  iv.,  Emperor,  338  ;  dies,  340. 

Leo  the  Armenian,  Emperor,  renews 
iconoclasm,  393. 

Leo  the  Isaurian,  Emperor,  263.  See 
Images. 

Leodegar  [Le"ger],  S.,  condemned  to 
death,  216  f. 

Liege,  two  pretended  Synods  at,  256. 

Litanice,  247. 

Lombards,  incursions  of,  in  Italy, 
283  ff.,  288,  294  f.,  307;  they 
defend  the  Pope,  282  ff. 

London,  Synod  in,  A.D.  712,  255. 

MACAEIUS,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  Mono- 
thelite,  139,  140,  148,  151,  152,  153, 
155,  156,  158  f.  ;  deposed,  165,  166  ; 
his  documents,  164ff. ;  refuses  sub 
mission  to  the  decision  of  the  sixth 
GEcumenical  Council,  179  ;  is  sent 
to  Rome,  and  remains  obstinate,  180, 
196. 

Macedonius,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  116, 
117. 

Magicians  and  soothsayers,  231,  244. 

Manaschiate,  Synod  at,  about  A.D 
687,  217. 

Mancipia,  245. 

Mansur.     See  John  Damascene. 

Marriages  with  heretics/orbidden:  they 
must  be  dissolved,  233  ;  marriages 
with  women  carried  off,  235 ;  forbidden 
marriages,  256  ;  marriages  with 
relations  forbidden,  231  ;  adultery 
and  incestuous  marriages  punished, 
249  ;  no  one  may  marry  a  woman 
engaged  to  another,  236  ;  remarriage 
not  allowed  when  the  death  of  the 
other  partner  is  not  certain,  235  ;  pre 
scriptions  on  marriage  and  divorce, 
210,  235. 

Martin  I.,  Pope.  See  Lateran  Synod, 
A.D.  649,  97  ff. ;  his  letters,  116  ;  his 
martyrdom,  118f. 

Martinmas,  church  dues  to  be  paid  at, 
243. 

Martyrs,  false  histories  of,  232. 


INDEX. 


469 


Masks  forbidden,  232. 

Mass.  — Grapes  not  to  be  used  for  wine, 
227  ;  nor  wine  without  water,  217 
(note),  228  ;  honey  and  milk  not  to 
be  offered,  231 ;  some  priests  offering 
do  not  receive  communion,  209  f. ; 
how  the  bread  for  the  Eucharist 
must  be  prepared,  245  ;  Masses  for 
the  dead  on  behalf  of  the  living, 
that  they  may  soon  die,  247. 

Maundy  Thursday,  228. 

Maurus,  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  100. 

Maximus,  S.,  abbot,  his  disputation 
with  Pyrrhus,  5,  6f.,  10,  73  ff. ;  he 
and  his  disciples  become  martyrs  for 
Dyothelitism,  126  ff. 

Maximus,  archbishop  of  Aquileia- 
Grado,  101,  106,  108. 

Mei^orepot,  clerical,  as  administrators  of 
estates,  381. 

Mennas,  archbishop  of  Constantinople, 
5, 6, 7, 10, 15,  23  ;  his  pretended  letter 
in  favour  of  Monothelitism,  165,  170. 

Mercia,  Synod  in,  A.D.  705,  254. 

Metropolitan  Constitution  among  the 
Franks,  for  years  no  Synod,  256  ;  a 
bishop  may  be  accused  before  a 
metropolitan,  214  ;  must  appear, 
when  summoned,  before  a  metro 
politan,  214  ;  a  bishop  may  appeal 
from  a  metropolitan,  214  ;  a  metro 
politan  may  not  demand  dues  from 
a  bishop,  380. 

Michael  Rangabe,  Emperor,  393  ;  goes 
into  a  convent,  393. 

Milan,  Synod  at,  about  A.D.  680,  140. 

Monks  and  monasteries.  —  One  who 
wishes  to  become  a  monk  must  be  at 
least  ten  years  old,  229  ;  anyone  may 
become  a  monk,  however  he  may 
hithertohave lived, 229;  nothingmust 
be  paid  for  entering  a  monastery,  384  ; 
monks  may  not  go  out  without  the 
blessingof  the  superior,  230;  no  woman 
may  enter  a  men's  convent,  and  inver 
sely,  230,  384,  385  ;  whether  secular 
persons  may  be  guests  in  a  monas 
tery,  219  ;  monasteries  for  both  sexes 
forbidden,  385  ;  monasteries  may 
not  be  turned  into  secular  dwellings, 
230  ;  nor  changed  into  taverns,  325, 
375  ;  what  belongs  to  them  may  not 
l>e  given  over  to  secular  persons, 
230  ;  punishment  of  unchaste  monks, 
230 ;  ConstantineCopronymus wishes 
to  root  out  Monastic-ism,  turns 
monasteries  into  taverns,  325,  375. 

Monophysitism  in  Armenia,  217. 

Monothelitism,  origin  of  this  heresy, 
1  ff. ;  who  was  the  first  Monthelite  ? 


5,  6  ;  the  Monothelites  appeal  to  S. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria,  6 ;  to  Dionysius, 
the  Areopagite,  7  ;  to  the  Patriarch 
Mennas,  15  ;  to  Pope  Vigilius,  154, 
166,  170 f.;  to  Pope  Honorius,  152, 
159,  165  ;  in  Alexandria,  the 
Monophysites  brought  into  union 
on  a  Monothelite  basis,  18  ff.;  the 
Patriarch  Sergius  writes  to  Pope 
Honorius,  22  ;  first  letter  of  Pope 
Honorius,  27  ff. ;  condemnation  of 
Honorius,  32  ff'. ;  second  letter  of 
Honorius,  49  ;  condemnation  of  his 
teaching,  50  ;  synodal  letter  of 
Sophronius  ngainst  Monothelitism, 
41  f. ;  the  Ecthesis  of  the  Emperor 
Heraclius,  61  f. ;  rejected  in  Rome, 
66  ;  Pope  Theodore  and  Paul  of 
Constantinople,  70,  90  ;  disputation 
between  Abbot  Maximus  and  the 
Patriarch  Pyrrhus,  73  ff'. ;  Typus  of 
the  Emperor  Constans  n.,  95  ; 
Lateran  Synod  under  Pope  Martin 
I.,  A.D.  649,  97 ff.;  Pope  Martin  I. 
becomes  a  martyr  for  Dyothelitism, 
125  ;  doctrine  of  Three  Wills,  128  ; 
temporary  peace  between  Rome  and 
Constantinople  under  Pope  Vitalian, 
135;  again  disturbed,  137  f. ;  the 
Emperor  Constantino  Pogonatus 
treats  with  Rome,  138 ;  Pope 
Agatho  sends  envoys  and  a  letter 
to  Constantinople,  142  ff.  ;  sixth 
(Ecumenical  Council,  149  f.  (see 
article,  Constantinople)  ;  Monothelit 
ism  rejected  in  the  West,  66,  69,89  f., 
181,  21 5  f. ;  renewed  in  the  East, 
and  again  suppressed,  257  ;  desig 
nated  as  Apollinarianism,  215. 

NESTERFIELD  [Easterfield],  Synod  at, 
about  701,  253. 

Nicrea,  preparations  for  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Synod  (second  of  N.), 
A.D.  787,  34011'.;  the  first  attempt  to 
hold  it  miscarries,  3.")  7  ;  its  convoca 
tion,  359  ;  members  and  presidents, 
360  f. ;  the  Oriental  vicars,  361  ;  first 
session,  361  ;  second,  364  ;  third, 
365  ;  fourth,  366  ;  decree  of  the 
faith,  369  ;  fifth  session,  370  ;  sixth, 
372  ;  seventh,  373  ;  the  Synod  re 
moved  to  Constantinople,  eighth 
session,  376  ;  canons,  378  ff.  ;  the 
rest  of  the  synodal  Acts,  386. 

Nicephorus,  Patriarch,  393. 

Nicephorus,  Prince,  340,349;  Emperor, 
393. 

Nicetas,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
enemy  of  images,  327. 


470 


INDEX. 


Nidd,  river.  Synod  at,  A.D.  705,  254. 
Noddre  [Adderburn],  Synod  at,  254. 
Nuns  and    nunneries,    the    candidate 
not  to  enter  in  showy  apparel,  230. 

See  Monasteries. 

OATHS,  heathen,  235. 

(Economia,  or  dispensatio  humanitatis 
assumtae,  how  Pope  Honorius  under 
stood,  38  f. 

(Eeonomus  to  be  in  every  church,  382. 

Oratories,  whether  divine  service  can 
be  held  in,  228  ;  baptism  not  per 
mitted  in  them,  231  ;  clerics  in 
oratories,  381. 

Ordinations,  illicitce  and  invalidce,  not 
sufficiently  distinguished,  337  f.  ; 
abbots  and  chorepiscopi  may  confer 
the  order  of  lector,  383. 

Orleans,  Synod  at,  A.D.  640,  69. 

Ouen,  S.  =  Audoenus,  q.v. 

PANTHEON  in  Rome,  the  Emperor  Con- 
stans  ii.  takes  the  brazen  roof  of  it, 
136. 

Papa,  bishops  were  so  called,  5.  See 
article,  Pope. 

Papal  legates,  weak,  exceed  their 
powers,  118,  128  f.,  196. 

Patriarch,  (Ecumenical  patriach  of  Con 
stantinople,  352  f. ;  how  the  Greeks 
explained  the  expression,  352 
(note). 

Paschal  feast.     See  Easter. 

Patrons,  rights  of,  381. 

Paul,  patriarch  of  Constantinople,  70, 
90,  91  ;  the  African  bishops  and 
Pope  Theodore  address  warning  let 
ters  to  him,  90  f.,  93;  his  answer, 
125  ;  Pope  Theodore  deposes  him, 
94  ;  he  repents,  95  ;  composes  the 
Typus,  96  ;  dies,  124. 

Paul  ii.,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
342,  343  ;  resigns,  343. 

Paul  of  Thessalonica,  118. 

Penance. — Bishops  and  clerics  as  peni 
tents,  214  ;  if  a  man  wishes  to  do 
penance,  he  must  first  cut  his  hair, 
and  a  woman  must  change  her 
clothes,  207  ;  tonsure  of  penitents, 
209  ;  one  who  has  done  penance 
may  not  return  to  the  marriage  bed, 
or  to  a  secular  life,  209  ;  one  who  is 
not  sane  may  not  be  taken  into  a 
state  of  penance,  211  ;  place  of 
penitents  in  church,  297  ;  for  the 
sick,  who  can  no  longer  speak, 
others  may  undertake  penance  :  if 
the  sick  man  recovers,  he  is  bound 
to  fulfil  the  vow  of  penance,  208  f. ; 


priests  who  receive  confession  must 
be  prudent  men,  236  f. 

Pennacchi,his  treatise  onPopeHonorius, 
23,  37,  57,  182,  188. 

Peter  Kalybites,  319. 

Peter  of  Alexandria,  117. 

Peter  of  Constantinople,  130. 

Philartemius,  Emperor  of  Constanti 
nople,  259. 

Philippicus  Bardanes,  Emperor  of  Con 
stantinople,  257  f. 

Pipin,  King,  anointed  by  Pope  Stephen 
in.,  308  ;  his  presentation  to  the 
Pope,  317,  330. 

Plato,  monk,  defender  of  images,  342, 
358. 

Pope.  — Election  of  Pope  requires  con 
firmation  of  the  Greek  Emperor  or 
his  exarch  at  Eavenna,  66,  98,  172  ; 
taxes  for  this,  172  ;  free  and  con 
strained  papal  election,  331  ff.  ; 
during  the  lifetime  of  Pope  Martin 
I.  a  new  Pope  elected,  125  ;  contests 
for  the  holy  see,  331  f.  ;  a  layman 
made  Pope,  332,  336  ;  forbidden, 
337  ;  only  a  cardinal  -  priest  or 
cardinal-deacon  may  be  made  Pope, 
and  all  participation  in  the  papal 
election  is  forbidden  to  the  laity, 
337  ;  who  is  the  representative  of 
the  Pope?  125  ;  vicars  of  the  Pope 
in  the  East,  96  f.,  116,  150;  in 
Illyricum,  151  ;  Pope  Hadrian  I. 
pronounces  on  the  papal  authority, 
350,  352  ;  Synods  may  be  held  only 
with  the  assent  of  the  Pope,  352  ; 
recognition  of  the  primacy,  90,  101, 
132,  179,  357,  388  ;  the  Popes  depose 
patriarchs,  94  ;  the  Emperor  calls 
the  Pope  oLKovfj-evLKos  lUiras,  138  ; 
relation  of  Pope  and  Emperors,  180, 
293,  297  ;  relation  of  Gregory  n.  to 
the  Emperor,  281,  284  f.;  the  Pope 
prevents  the  Emperor  from  imposing 
unreasonable  taxes,  281  f.,  285  ; 
Popes  are  ill-treated  by  Emperors, 
118,  239  ;  protection  of  the  Pope 
against  the  Emperor,  239  ;  the  Pope 
can  be  tried  only  for  heresy,  187, 
195  ;  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  143, 
144  f.,  146  f.,  330;  the  Spanish 
bishops  oppose  the  Pope,  218.  See 
Church,  States  of. 

Predestination,  erroneous  doctrine  of 
S.  Maximus,  132. 

Presanctiftcatoria  Missa,  230. 

Presbytery,  no  layman,  except  the 
Emperor,  may  stand  in,  232. 

Pyrrhus,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
5,  9,  61  ;  becomes  successor  of 


INDEX. 


471 


Sergius,  65  ;  banished,  70,  71  ;  his 
disputation  with  Abbot  Maximus, 
73  ;  he  renounces  the  Monothelite 
heresy  in  Rome,  89  f.,  99  ;  relapses, 
100  ;  again  becomes  patriarch,  124  ; 
dies,  129. 

QUINISEXT  Synod,  A.D.  692,  221  if. 
Quiricius,  archbishop  of  Toledo,  207. 

RECLTJSI  Monachi,  229  f. 

Relationship,  spiritual,  231,  243  ;  for 
bidden  degrees  of  (see  Marriage). 

Relics,  Constantino  Copronymus  per 
secutes,  314  f.,  326 ;  the  seventh 
(Ecumenical  Council  recommends 
the  veneration  of  relics,  369,  374, 
380  ;  no  church  may  be  consecrated 
without  relics,  380. 

Ring,  the  Episcopal,  the  font  to  be 
sealed  with,  247. 

Rome,  Synods  at,  A.D.  640  and  641, 
67  ;  A.D.  646,  92  f. ;  A.D.  649,  97  ff. ; 
A.D.  680,  140,  141 ;  its  letter,  146  ff. ; 
A.D.  703-4,  252  ;  about  A.D.  712, 
258  ;  A.D.  721,  256  ;  A.D.  724,  257  ; 
A.D.  727,  302;  A.D.  731,  303; 
Lateran  Synod,  A.D.  769,  333  ff. 

Rouen,  Synod  at,  A.D.  682-693, 
211  f. 

SACRAMENTS,  whether  illicite  or  in- 
valide  administered,  not  sufficiently 
distinguished,  337. 

Saints,  veneration  of,  forbidden  by 
Constantine  Copronymus,  326. 

Salvias  aquas,  ad,  Greek  convent  at 
Rome,  103. 

Saragossa,  Synod  at,  A.D.  691,  219. 

Sclmeemann,  his  treatise  on  Pope 
Honorius,  37,  190. 

Scholce,  258  (note). 

Secretarii  =  sessions  or  localities  of 
Synods,  98. 

Sergius,  archbishop  of  Cyprus,  72. 

Sergius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
3,  4,  10,  12,  15,  16  ;  misled  by  Cyrus 
of  Phasis,  15  f. ;  rejoices  in  the  union 
in  Alexandria,  21  ;  writes  to  Pope 
Honorius,  22 ;  is  author  of  the 
Ecthesis,  61  ;  dies,  65. 

Sergius,  Pope,  219,  238,  239. 

Shaving  thought  improper,  321  (note). 

Sicily  taken  from  the  Pope,  303. 

Silentium,  imperial  consultative  as 
sembly,  277,  307. 

Simony  forbidden,  227,  379  f.,  384, 
388  ;  very  common  in  the  Greek 
Church,  388. 

Sisebert,  archbishop  of  Toledo,  219. 


Slaves,  ordinances  on  the  liberation  of, 
234,  249 ;  slaves  not  to  be  com 
pelled  to  labour  on  Sunday,  249  ; 
meat  not  to  be  given  to  them  on 
fast  days,  249  ;  no  Christian  may  be 
the  slave  of  a  Jew,  211  ;  slaves 
guilty  of  theft  may  be  sold  out  of 
the  Empire,  250  ;  can  slaves  hold 
offices  of  State  ?  213. 

Sodomites  abundant  in  Spain,  severely 
punished,  245. 

Soothsaying,  231,  244.  See  Supersti 
tion. 

Sophronius,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  5, 
22,  41  f.;  dies,  181. 

Spain,  sodomy  in  Spain,  245  ;  Spanish 
Creeds,  208,  212,  244  ;  influence  of 
bishops  in  Spain  on  the  King  and 
the  kingdom,  208,  212. 

Spatharius,  263. 

Spatharo  candidatus,  273. 

Status  laicalis,  removal  into,  227. 

Stephen  in.,  Pope,  seeks  help  in 
vain,  from  Constantine  Copronymus, 
against  the  Lombards,  then  from 
Pipin,  307. 

Stephen  iv.,  Pope,  333. 

Stephen,  abbot,  martyr  for  the  images, 
265,  273,  315  ;  his  martyrdom,  320. 

Stephen,  Abbot  of  Antioch,  Mono 
thelite,  152,  157,  162. 

Stephen,  bishop  of  Dor,  94  f.,  101,  116. 

Stewards  of  the  church  and  of  monas 
teries,  382. 

Stylites,  a  monk  who  lives  in  a  pillar- 
like  cell,  324. 

Subdiaconate,  with  the  Greeks  also 
sub-deacons  after  ordination  not  per 
mitted  to  marry,  225  ;  those  already 
married  must  abstain  from  their 
wives  during  the  time  of  service,  226. 

Substances,  three  in  Christ,  taught  in 
Spain,  218. 

Suicide,  punishment  of  attempted,  245. 

Sunday,  hallowing  of,  243,  255,  259  ; 
one  not  coming  to  church  for  three 
successive  Sundays  to  be  punished, 
234  ;  the  knee  not  to  be  bent  on 
Sunday,  235. 

Superstition,  remains  of  heathen  super 
stition,  211,  231,  244  ;  different 
kinds  of,  231  ;  hairs  of  bears  as 
amulets,  232  ;  soothsaying  and  the 
like,  231 ;  nativity,  232 ;  heathen 
oaths,  235. 

Synods,  Alphabetical  List  of,  452. 

Synods,  provincial,  how  often  to  be 
held,  211,  215  ;  prescriptions  on  the 
holding  of  Synods,  247  ;  representa 
tives  of  bishops  at  Synods,  149,  207, 


472 


INDEX. 


212  f.,  215,  217,  225,  237,  243,  333  f., 
360  tf. ;  laymen,  secular  grandees, 
and  officials  at  Synods,  207,  212, 
242,  243,  248,  303,  334  ;  abbesses 
at  Synods,  248,  254  ;  Synods  to 
examine  the  laws  of  States,  208  ;  in 
France  no  provincial  Synods  held  for 
eighty  years,  255  ;  (Ecumenical 
Synods  may  not  be  held  without 
consent  of  the  Pope,  354. 
Synodus  =  province,  146  ;= collection  of 
the  episcopate,  140  f. 

TAEASIUS,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
345  f.,  386  f.;  his  relation  to  Simon- 
ists,  388. 

Theatres  and  theatrical  dances  for 
bidden,  230. 

Theodore  I.,  Pope,  70,  92,  93,  94. 

Theodore,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
Monothelite,  138,  148  (note),  198. 

Theodore,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  328  f. 

Theodore,  patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  329  f. 

Theodore  Studites,  388  f. 

Theodore  of  Canterbury,  140,  147, 
206  f.,  216  f. 

Theodore  of  Melitene,  156,  163,  164. 

Theodore  of  Pharan,  5. 

Theodosius,  18. 

Theodosius  of  Ephesus,  enemy  of  the 
images,  268,  308. 

Theophanes,  patriarch  of  Antioch,  169. 

Theophanes,  historian,  his  reckoning 
of  time,  3  (note) ;  his  zeal  for  the 
images,  264. 

Toledo,  twelfth  Synod,  207 ;  thir 
teenth,  212  ;  fourteenth,  215  ; 
fifteenth,  217  ;  sixteenth,  243  ; 
seventeenth,  247  ;  eighteenth,  250. 

Tonsure  of  penitents,  207,  208. 

Travellers,  privileges  for,  385. 

Trisagion,  the  addition,  "Who  was 
crucified  for  us,"  forbidden,  234. 

Trullum  and  Trullan  Synod,  A.D.  692, 
149,  221  ff. ;  judgment  of  Rome  on 


the  Trullan  canons,  239  ;  Pope 
Hadrian  I.  regards  them  as  canons 
of  the  sixth  (Ecumenical  Synod, 
241  f.,  369  ff.;  the  Greeks  also  as 
cribe  them  to  the  sixth  (Ecumenical 
Synod,  221,  241,  242,  346,  347,  378. 

Tungern,  pretended  Synod  at,  256. 

Twyford.  Synod  at,  A.D.  684,  216. 

Typus  of  the  Emperor  Constans  n.,  95. 

UNCHASTITY,    punishment    for,    249 ; 

with  clergy,  224,  225. 
Utrecht,  Synod,  A.D.  697,  250;  A.D. 

719,  256. 

VICOVALAKI,  Synod  at,  A.D.  715,  256. 

Victor,  archbishop  of  Carthage,  90,  92. 

Vigilius,  Pope,  spurious  letters,  of 
Monothelite  content,  154,  166,  170. 

Villeroi,  Synod  at,  A.D.  684-5,  216. 

Vintonia  =  Winchester,  bishopric  di 
vided,  254. 

Vitalian,  Pope,  136,  137,  139. 

WAMBA,  Spanish  King,  207  ff.;  his 
laws,  208  ;  his  death,  207. 

Wessex,  Synod,  beginning  of  eighth 
century,  254. 

Widows  of  Spanish  Kings  may  not  re 
marry,  212. 

Wilfrid,  S.,  bishop  of  York,  141,  146  ; 
imprisoned,  206  ;  restored,  206  f. ; 
persecuted  again,  251  ;  appeals  to 
Rome,  and  takes  refuge  there,  252  ; 
Roman  Synod  on  his  account,  252  f. ; 
conquers  and  dies,  253. 

Wine.     See  Mass. 

Withred,  English  King,  248. 

Witiza,  Spanish  King,  abolishes  celi 
bacy,  250. 

Witnesses,  false,  their  punishment,  243. 

Women,  rape  of,  235,  257. 

ZACHARIAS,  Pope,  his  position  in  the 
iconoclastic  strife,  306. 


MORRISON   AND  GIBE,    PRINTERS,    EDINBURGH. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


BISHOP  HEFELE'S  COUNCILS  OF  THE  CHURCH. 

A  History  of  the  Councils  of  the  Church.  From  the 
Original  Documents.  By  the  Right  Rev.  C.  J.  HEFELE,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Rottenburg.  In  Five  Volumes,  demy  8vo,  price 
12s.  each.  Vol.  I.  To  A.D.  325.  Vol.  II.  A.D.  326  to  429. 
Vol.  III.  A.D.  431  to  451.  Vol.  IV.  A.D.  451  to  680.  (Vol.  V., 
completing  the  series,  A.D.  626  to  close  of  Second  Council  of 
Nicsea,  787.  With  Appendix  and  Indices.  In  the  Press  —  nearly 
ready.) 

1  To  all  who  have  the  slightest  pretension  to  the  name  of  scientific  theologians  it 
must  afford  the  greatest  satisfaction  to  receive  a  new  volume  of  Bishop  Hefele's 
standard  work  on  the  Councils.  It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  commend  this  great  and 
learned  book.  No  one  would  think  of  studying  the  subject  of  the  Councils  without 
consulting  it.'  —  Church  Bells. 

'  A  thorough  and  fair  compendium,  put  in  a  most  accessible  and  intelligent  form.'  — 
Guardian. 

Declarations  and  Letters  on  the  Vatican  Decrees, 
1869-1887.  By  IGNAZ  VON  DOLLINGER.  Authorised  Transla 
tion.  In  crown  8vo,  price  3s.  6d. 

Dr.  ALFRED  PLUMMKR  says:  —  'This  intensely  interesting  collection  of  Declarations 
and  Letters  gives  us  in  a  short  compass  the  main  historical  facts  which  Dr.  Dollinger 
considered  to  be  absolutely  fatal  to  the  truth  of  the  dogma  respecting  the  infallibility  of 
the  Pope,  and  the  reasons  which  for  nineteen  years  prevented  him  from  "  submitting" 
even  to  the  Pope  with  the  whole  of  the  Koman  episcopate  at  his  back.  .  .  .  Indispens 
able  to  every  one  who  would  have  an  intelligent  grasp  of  the  infallibility  question.' 

Hippolytus  and  Callistus;  or,  The  Church  of  Rome  in  the 
First  Half  of  the  Third  Century.  By  JOHN  J.  IGN.  VON 
DOLLINGER.  Translated,  with  Introduction,  Notes,  and  Appendices, 
by  ALFRED  PLUM  ME  R,  Master  of  University  College,  Durham.  In 
One  Volume,  Svo,  price  7s.  6d. 

'  We  are  impressed  with  profound  respect  for  the  learning  and  ingenuity  displayed  in 
this  work.  The  book  deserves  perusal  by  all  students  of  ecclesiastical  history.  It 
clears  up  many  points  hitherto  obscure,  and  reveals  features  in  the  Roman  Church  at 


Christian    Charity    in    the    Ancient    Church.     By  G. 

UHLHORN,  D.D.     In  crown  8vo,  price  6s. 

4  A  very  excellent  translation  of  a  very  valuable  book.'  —  Guardian. 

'The  facts  are  surprising,  many  of  them  fresh,  and  the  truths  to  be  deduced  are  far 
more  powerful  as  weapons  for  warring  against  infidelity  than  scores  of  lectures  or 
bushels  of  tracts.1—  Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 

Handbook  of  Church  History:   From  the  Reformation.     By 
Professor  J.  H.  KURTZ,  D.D.     In  demy  Svo,  price  7s.  6d. 

'A  work  executed  with  great  diligence  and  care,  exhibiting  an  accurate  collection  of 
facts,  and  a  succinct  though  full  account  of  the  history  and  progress  of  the  Church,  both 
external  and  internal.  .  .  .  The  work  is  distinguished  for  the  moderation  and  charity  of 
its  expressions,  and  for  a  spirit  which  is  truly  Christian.'  —  English  Churchman. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


PROFESSOR  SGHAFF'S  CHURCH  HISTORY. 

History  of  the  Christian  Church.  By  the  late  PHILIP 
SCHAFF,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Professor  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

Six  'Divisions'  (in  Two  Volumes  each,  21s.)  of  this  great  work  are  now  ready. 
Each  Division  covers  a  separate  and  distinct  epoch,  and  is  complete  in  itself. 

1.  APOSTOLIC  CHRISTIANITY,  A.D.  1-100.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

2.  ANTE-NICENE  CHRISTIANITY,  A.D.  100-325.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

3.  NICENE  AND  POST-NICENE  CHRISTIANITY,  A.D.  325-600.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy 

8vo,  price  21s. 

4.  MEDIEVAL  CHRISTIANITY,  A.D.  590-1073.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

5.  THE  GERMAN  REFORMATION.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

6.  THE  SWISS  REFORMATION.     Two  Vols.     Ex.  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

'Dr.  Schaff's  "History  of  the  Christian  Church  "  is  the  most  valuable  contribution  to  Ecclesias 
tical  History  that  has  euer  been  published  in  this  country.  When  completed  it  will  haue  no  riual 
in  point  of  comprehensiveness,  and  in  presenting  the  results  of  the  most  advanced  scholarship 
and  the  latest  discoveries.  Each  Division  covers  a  separate  and  distinct  epoch,  and  is  complete  in 
itself.' 

'No  student,  and  indeed  no  critic,  can  with  fairness  overlook  a  work  like  the  present, 
written  with  such  evident  candour,  and,  at  the  same  time,  with  so  thorough  a  knowledge 
of  the  sources  of  early  Christian  history.' — Scotsman. 

'  No  feature  of  the  book  has  struck  us  more  than  the  way  in  which  it  combines  learned 
accuracy  with  popular  writing.  Students  can  rely  on  the  volume,  and  will  find  what 
they  want  in  it.  ...  The  reader  is  all  along  in  contact  with  a  lively,  various,  progress 
ive  story,  full  of  interest  and  of  movement.' — Principal  EGBERT  HAINY,  D.D. 


SCHURER'S  HISTORY  OF  THE  JEWS. 


History  of  the  Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  our 
Lord.  By  EMIL  SCHURER,  D.D.,  M.A.,  Professor  of  Theology  at 
the  University  of  Gottingen.  Now  complete  in  Five  Volumes,  8vo, 
price  10s.  6d.  each. 

1st  Division,  in  Two  Vols.,  Political  History  of  Palestine,  from  B.C.  175  to  A.D.  135. 
2nd  Division,  in  Three  Vols.,  Internal  Condition  of  Palestine  in  the  Time  of  Christ. 

*V*  Professor  Schurer  has  prepared  an  exhaustive  INDEX  to  this  work,  to  which  he  attaches 
great  value.  The  Translation  is  issued  in  a  separate  volume  (100  pp.  8vo).  Price  2s.  6d.  net. 

'  Eecognised  as  the  standard  authority  on  the  subject.' — Critical  Review. 

' Every  English  commentary  has  for  some  years  contained  references  to  "Schurer" 
as  the  great  authority  upon  such  matters.  .  .  .  There  is  no  guide  to  these  intricate 
and  difficult  times  which  even  approaches  him.  We  can  assure  our  readers  that 
nowhere  will  they  find  such  accurate  and  minute,  and  so  conveniently  arranged 
information  on  this  period  as  in  Schiirer's  volumes.' — The  Record. 

1  Under  Professor  Schiirer's  guidance,  we  are  enabled  to  a  large  extent  to  construct  a 
social  and  political  framework  for  the  Gospel  History,  and  to  set  it  in  such  a  light  as  to 
see  new  evidences  of  the  truthfulness  of  that  history  and  of  its  contemporaneousness.' 
— English  Churchman. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


History  of  the  Sacred  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testa 
ment.  By  Professor  E.  REUSS,  D.D.  Translated  from  the  Fifth 
Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition.  8vo,  640  pp.,  price  15s. 

1  It  would  be  hard  to  name  any  single  volume  which  contains  so  much  that  is  helpful 
to  the  student  of  the  New  Testament.  .  .  .  Considering  that  so  much  ground  is  covered, 
the  fulness  and  accuracy  of  the  information  given  are  remarkable.  Professor  Reuss's 
work  is  not  that  of  a  compiler,  but  of  an  original  thinker,  who  throughout  this  encyclo 
pedic  volume  depends  much  more  on  his  own  research  than  on  the  labours  of  his 
predecessors.  .  .  .  The  translation  is  thoroughly  well  done,  accurate,  and  full  of  life.' — 
Expositor. 

4  One  of  the  most  valuable  volumes  of  Messrs.  Clark's  valuable  publications.  ...  Its 
usefulness  is  attested  by  undiminished  vitality.  .  .  .  His  method  is  admirable,  and  he 
unites  German  exhaustiveness  with  French  lucidity  and  brilliancy  of  expression.  .  .  . 
The  sketch  of  the  great  exegetic  epochs,  their  chief  characteristics,  and  the  critical 
estimates  of  the  most  eminent  writers,  is  given  by  the  author  with  a  compression  and  a 
mastery  that  have  never  been  surpassed.' — Dean  EARRAR. 


Canon  and  Text  of  the  Old  Testament.  By  Professor 
Dr.  FRANTS  BUHL,  Leipzig  (successor  to  the  late  Professor  Franz 
Delitzsch).  Authorised  Translation.  In  demy  8vo,  price  7s.  6d. 

'By  far  the  best  manual  that  exists  on  the  subject  of  which  it  treats.' — Professor 
A.  B.  DAVIDSON,  D.D.,  in  The  Expositor. 

'  It  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  more  comprehensive,  succinct,  and  lucid  digest  of  the 
results  of  recent  study  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  and  text  than  is  given  in  this 
volume.  Instead  of  bewildering  us  with  a  crowd  of  discordant  opinions,  the  author 
sifts  the  evidence  and  indicates  the  right  conclusion.  His  tone  is  eminently  free  and 
impartial.  He  is  no  slave  to  tradition,  and  no  lover  of  novelty  for  its  own  sake.  The 
discussion  in  the  text  is  kept  clear  by  the  relegation  of  further  references  and  quotations 
to  supplementary  paragraphs.  These  paragraphs  are  a  perfect  mine  of  exact,  detailed 
information.' — Professor  J.  S.  BANKS  in  The  Critical  Review. 


The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture:  A  Critical,  Historical, 
and  Dogmatic  Inquiry  into  the  Origin  and  Nature  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments.  By  G.  T.  LADD,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Mental  and 
Moral  Philosophy,  Yale  College.  Two  Vols.  8vo  (1600  pp.),  price  24s. 

'  It  is  not  very  easy  to  give  an  account  of  this  very  considerable  and  important  work 
within  the  compass  of  one  short  notice.  ...  It  is  one  which  will  certainly  be  studied 
by  all  scientific  theologians,  and  the  general  reader  will  probably  find  here  a  better 
summary  of  the  whole  subject  than  in  any  other  work  or  series  of  works.' — Church  Bells. 

4  This  important  work  is  pre-eminently  adapted  for  students,  and  treats  in  an 
exhaustive  manner  nearly  every  important  subject  of  biblical  criticism  which  is  agitating 
the  religious  mind  at  the  present  day.' — Contemporary  Review. 


The  First  Epistle  of  Peter :  With  Introduction  and  Commen 
tary.     By  Prof.  R.  JOHNSTONE,  D.D.,  Edinburgh.    8vo,  price  10s.  6d. 

4  Dr.  Johnstone  has  done  excellent  service  in  publishing  this  work.' — Record. 
4  Full  of  thoughtfulness  and  spiritual  power  and  suggestiveness,  and  likely  to  be  a 
valuable  book  to  all  Christian  teachers.'—  Literary  World. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


History    of   the    Christian    Philosophy    of    Religion, 

from  the  Reformation  to  Kant.  By  BERNHAKD  PUNJER.  Trans 
lated  from  the  German  by  Professor  W.  HASTIE,  D.D.  With  a 
Preface  by  Professor  FLINT,  D.D.,  LL.D.  In  demy  8vo,  price  16s. 

1  The  merits  of  Punjer's  history  are  not  difficult  to  discover ;  on  the  contrary,  they 
are  of  the  kind  which,  as  the  French  say,  sautent  aux  yeux.  The  language  is  almost 
everywhere  as  plain  and  easy  to  apprehend  as,  considering  the  nature  of  the  matter 
conveyed,  it  could  be  made.  The  style  is  simple,  natural,  and  direct;  the  only  sort  of 
style  appropriate  to  the  subject.  The  amount  of  information  imparted  is  most  exten 
sive,  and  strictly  relevant.  Nowhere  else  will  a  student  get  nearly  so  much  knowledge 
as  to  what  has  been  thought  and  written,  within  the  area  of  Christendom,  on  the  philo 
sophy  of  religion.  He  must  be  an  excessively  learned  man  in  that  department  who  has 
nothing  to  learn  from  this  book.' — Extract  from  Preface  by  Professor  FLINT. 

A  History  of  German  Theology  in  the  Nineteenth  Century. 
By  F.  LICHTENBERGER,  D.D.,  Dean  of  the  Faculty  of  Protestant 
Theology  of  Paris.  Revised  and  brought  up  to  date,  with 
important  additions  specially  prepared  for  the  English  Edition  by 
the  Author.  Translated  by  Professor  W.  HASTIE,  D.D.  In  One 
large  Volume,  8vo,  price  14s. 

'  As  to  the  importance  of  an  accurate  and  comprehensive  history  of  German  theology, 
diversity  of  opinion  is  impossible.  .  .  .  We  welcome  this  work  as  an  indispensable  aid 
to  the  theological  student,  as  a  valuable  repertory  of  historical  information,  and  a  series 
of  luminous  and  effective  criticisms.  Its  learning,  its  calm  judicial  tone,  its  fine  insight, 
and  its  lucidity  and  candour  impart  to  it  quite  exceptional  worth.' — Baptist  Magazine. 

'  Such  a  work  speaks  for  itself.  Packed  full  of  information,  interesting  in  style,  it 
will  long  remain  a  guide  to  the  complexities  of  German  theology.' — Methodist  Times. 

Hymns  and  Thoughts  on  Religion.  By  NOVALIS.  With  a 
Biographical  Sketch.  Translated  and  Edited  by  Prof.  HASTIE, 
D.D.,  Glasgow  University.  In  crown  8vo,  with  Portrait,  price  4s. 

'As  a  poet,  Novalis  is  no  less  idealistic  than  as  a  philosopher.  His  poems  are 
breathings  of  a  high,  devout  soul.' — CARLYLE. 

Christmas  Eve :  A  Dialogue  on  the  Celebration  of  Christmas.     By 
SCHLEIERMACHER.  Translated  by  Prof.  HASTIE,  D.D.  Cr.  8 vo,  price  2s. 
'  A  genuine  Christmas  book,  an  exquisite  prose-poem.' — Baptist  Magazine. 

Kant's  Principles  of  Politics,  including  His  Essay  on 
Perpetual  Peace.  A  Contribution  to  Political  Science.  Edited  and 
Translated  by  Prof.  HASTIE,  D.D.  In  crown  8vo,  price  2s.  6d. 

The  Voice  from  the  Cross :  A  Series  of  Sermons  on  our  Lord's 
Passion  by  Eminent  Living  Preachers  of  Germany,  including  Rev. 
Drs.  Ahlfeld,  Baur,  Bayer,  Couard,  Faber,  Frommel,  Gerok, 
Hahnelt,  Hansen,  Koge.1,  Luthardt,  Miihe,  Miillensiefen,  Nebe, 
Quandt,  Schrader,  Schroter,  Stocker,  and  Teichmiiller.  With 
Biographical  Sketches,  and  Portrait  of  Dr.  Kb'gel.  Edited  and 
Translated  by  WILLIAM  MACKINTOSH,  M.A.,  F.S.S.  Cr.  8vo,  price  5s. 

'  Is  certain  to  be  welcomed  with  devout  gratitude  by  every  evangelical  Christian  in 
Great  Britain.' — Christian  Leader. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


The  Jewish  and  the  Christian  Messiah :  A  Study  in  the 
Earliest  History  of  Christianity.  By  Professor  VINCENT  HENRY 
STANTON,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Trinity  College,  Cambridge.  In  demy  8vo, 
price  10s.  6d. 

'  Mr.  Stanton's  book  answers  a  real  want,  and  will  be  indispensable  to  students  of  the 
origin  of  Christianity.'—  Guardian. 

'  We  welcome  this  book  as  a  valuable  addition  to  the  literature  of  a  most  important 
subject.  .  .  .  The  book  is  remarkable  for  the  clearness  of  its  style.  Mr.  Stanton  is  never 
obscure  from  beginning  to  end,  and  we  think  that  no  reader  of  average  attainments  will 
be  able  to  put  the  book  down  without  having  learnt  much  from  his  lucid  and  scholarly 
exposition. ' — Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 

An  Explanatory  Commentary  on  Esther.  With  Four 
Appendices,  consisting  of  the  Second  Targuni  translated  from  the 
Aramaic  with  Notes,  Mithra,  the  Winged  Bulls  of  Persepolis,  and 
Zoroaster.  By  Professor  PAULUS  CASSEL,  D.D.,  Berlin.  In  demy 
8vo,  price  10s.  6d. 

'  A  perfect  mine  of  information.' — Record. 

4  No  one  whose  fortune  it  is  to  secure  this  commentary  will  rise  from  its  study  without 
a  new  and  lively  realisation  of  the  life,  trials,  and  triumphs  of  Esther  and  Mordecai.' — 
Ecclesiastical  Gazette. 

Handbook  of  Biblical  Archaeology.  By  Professor  CARL 
FRIEDRICH  KEIL,  D.D.  Translated  from  the  Third  Improved  and 
Corrected  Edition.  In  Two  Volumes,  demy  8vo,  price  21s. 

'  This  work  is  the  standard  scientific  treatise  on  Biblical  Archaeology.  It  is  a  very 
mine  of  learning.' — John  Bull. 

Biblical  Essays ;  or,  Exegetical  Studies  on  the  Books  of  Job  and 
Jonah,  Ezekiel's  Prophecy  of  Gog  and  Magog,  St.  Peter's  '  Spirits  in 
Prison,'  and  the  Key  to  the  Apocalypse.  By  CHARLES  H.  H. 
WRIGHT,  D.D.  In  crown  8vo,  price  5s. 

'  Solid  scholarship,  careful  and  sober  criticism,  and  a  style  which  is  pure  and  lucid.' — 
Church  Bells. 

Christ's  Second  Coming ;  Will  it  be  Pre-Millennial  ?  By  Prin 
cipal  DAVID  BROWN,  D.D.,  LL.D.  Cr.  8vo,  7th  Ed.,  price  7s.  6d. 

'  This  is,  in  our  judgment,  one  of  the  most  able,  comprehensive,  and  conclusive  of 
the  numerous  works  which  the  millenarian  controversy  has  called  forth.' —  Watchman. 

The  Footsteps  of  Christ.  Translated  from  the  German  of  A. 
GASPERS.  In  crown  8vo,  price  7s.  6d. 

'  There  is  much  deeply  experimental  truth  and  precious  spiritual  love  in  Gaspers' 
book.  .  .  .  I  own  myself  much  profited  by  his  devout  utterances.' — Rev.  C.  H.  SPURGEON. 

Gotthold's  Emblems  ;  or,  Invisible  Things  understood  by  Things 
that  are  Made.  By  CHRISTIAN  SCRIVER.  In  crown  8vo,  price  5s. 

'A  peculiarly  fascinating  volume.  It  is  rich  in  happy  and  beautiful  thoughts,  which 
grow  on  the  root  of  genuine  piety.' — Witness. 


T.  &  T.  CLARK'S  PUBLICATIONS. 


THE  ANTE-NICENE  CHRISTIAN  LIBRARY. 

The  Ante-Nicene  Christian  Library.  A  Collection  of  all  the 
Works  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Christian  Church  prior  to  the  Council 
of  Nicsea.  Edited  by  the  Rev.  Professor  ROBERTS,  D.D.,  and 
Principal  JAMES  DONALDSON,  LL.D.,  St.  Andrews.  In  Twenty-four 
handsome  8vo  Volumes,  Subscription  Price  £6,  6s.  net;  or  a 
selection  of  Twelve  Volumes  for  <£3,  3s.  net. 

Any  Volume  may  be  bad  separately,  price  10s.  6d. 

This  Series  has  been  received  with  marked  approval  by  all  sections  of  the  Christian 
Church  in  this  country  and  in  the  United  States,  as  supplying  what  has  long  been 
felt  to  be  a  want,  and  also  on  account  of  the  impartiality,  learning,  and  care  with 
which  Editors  and  Translators  have  executed  a  very  difficult  task. 

The  following  Works  are  included  in  the  Series  : — 

Apostolic  Fathers,  comprising  Clement's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians ;  Polycarp  to  the 
Ephesians  ;  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp  ;  Epistle  of  Barnabas  ;  Epistles  of  Ignatius  (longer  and 
shorter,  and  also  the  Syriac  Version) ;  Martyrdom  of  Ignatius  ;  Epistle  to  Diognetus  ;  Pastor 
of  Hermas ;  Papias ;  Spurious  Epistles  of  Ignatius.  One  Volume.  Justin  Martyr; 
Athenagoras.  One  Volume.  Tatian;  Theophilus;  The  Clementine 
Recognitions.  One  Volume.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  comprising  Exhortation 
to  Heathen ;  The  Instructor ;  and  the  Miscellanies.  Two  Volumes.  Hippolytus, 
Volume  First ;  Refutation  of  all  Heresies,  and  Fragments  from  his  Commentaries. 
Irenaeus,  Volume  First.  Irenaeus  (completion)  and  Hippolytus  (completion); 
Fragments  of  Third  Century.  One  Volume.  Tertullian  against  Marcion. 
One  Volume.  Cyprian;  The  Epistles  and  Treatises;  Novatian;  Minucius  Felix. 
Two  Volumes.  Origen :  De  Principiis  ;  Letters ;  and  portion  of  Treatise  against  Celsus. 
Two  Volumes.  Tertullian :  To  the  Martyrs  ;  Apology ;  To  the  Nations,  etc.  Three 
Volumes.  Methodius;  Alexander  of  Lycopolis;  Peter  of  Alexandria 
Anatolius;  Clement  on  Virginity;  and  Fragments.  One  Volume.  Apocry 
phal  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Revelations ;  comprising  all  the  very  curious  Apocryphal 
Writings  of  the  first  three  Centuries.  One  Volume.  Clementine  Homilies; 
Apostolical  Constitutions.  One  Volume.  Arnobius.  One  Volume.  Gregory 
Thaumaturgus ;  Dionysius ;  Archelaus ;  Syrian  Fragments.  One  Volume. 
Lactantius;  together  with  the  Testaments  of  the  Twelve  Patriarchs,  and  Fragments  of 
the  Second  and  Third  Centuries.  Two  Volumes.  Early  Liturgies  and  Remaining 
Fragments.  One  Volume. 

ST.  AUGUSTINE'S  WORKS. 

The  Works  of  Aurelius  Augustine,  Bishop  of  Hippo. 
Edited  by  MARCUS  DODS,  D.D.  In  Fifteen  Volumes,  demy  8vo, 
Subscription  Price  £3,  19s.  net. 

Any  Volume  may  be  had  separately,  price  10s.  6d. 
The  '  City  of  God.'    Two  Volumes. 
Writings    in    connection    with    the 
Donatist  Controversy.    One  Volume. 
The     Anti-Pelagian     Works.      Three 

Volumes. 
Treatises  against  Faustus  the 

Manichaean.  One  Volume. 
On  the  Trinity.  One  Volume. 
Commentary  on  John.  Two  Volumes. 


The  Harmony  of  the  Evangelists, 
and  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount. 

One  Volume. 
'  Letters.'    Two  Volumes. 

On  Christian  Doctrine,  Enchiridion, 
on  Catechising,  and  on  Faith 
and  the  Creed.  One  Volume. 

'Confessions.'      With    Copious   Notes    by 

Rev.  J.  G.  PlLKINGTON. 


'For  the  reproduction  of  the  "City  of  God"  in  an  admirable  English  garb  we  are  greatly 
indebted  to  the  well-directed  enterprise  and  energy  of  Messrs.  Clark,  and  to  the  accuracy  and 
scholarship  of  those  who  have  undertaken  the  laborious  task  of  translation.' — Christian  Observer. 

N.B. — Messrs.  CLARK  offer  a  Selection  of  Twelve  Volumes  from  either  or  both  of 
those  Series  at  the  Subscription  Price  of  Three  Guineas  net  (or  a  larger  number  at 
same  proportion). 


^ 

3 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
CARDS  OR  SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 

UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO  LIBRARY 


BX 

821 

HMM13 

1883 

V.5 

C.I 

ROBA